The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
What the Wall Is Really About
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From commenter Boethiuss:

And while I’m at it, one more thing related to my prior comment.

Did you ever notice, that right now the possibility of a wall across our southern border is the ultimate Sailerite/Leninist who/whom? issue, in its purest form?

I mean yeah it’s sort of about immigration, but not really. At a much deeper lever it’s who/whom. If somehow, by any possible means we build the wall, we’re the who and without it we’re the whom. Fundamentally, that’s why we want the wall, and that’s why the other side is just as determined to prevent us from having it.

In objective terms, the situation should be reversed. If we build a wall, and let’s suppose it works pretty well, the possibility of massive illegal immigration ceases to be an ongoing threat and becomes more of a historical idiosyncrasy. And then it’s much easier to justify regularization or amnesty for the illegals already here. They’re the ones who should be pushing a wall onto us. But they’re not. Even if millions of their constituents depend on it, it’s not a concession they feel the need to make.

Let’s face it, right now we’re the whom and they’re the who. And in those terms, we’re in worse shape now than we were under President Obama especially toward the end of his second term.

Essentially, the fight over the Wall is about whether Americans even have a right to build a Wall.

 
Hide 171 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. This is the fallacy people on the right constantly fall into: thinking that anything that pisses off liberals and the cultural elite must be a great idea. The wall is a useful gauge of Trump’s broader intentions towards immigration at any given moment. But actually fixing the immigration issue would involve teaming up with economic liberals to use government regulation to punish those that employ, house, and bank with illegal immigrants. These are economic migrants and the only way to fix the problem is through economic regulation.

    I’m not against the wall but, even if we somehow win the continual fight to keep it manned and maintained properly, it’s just going to create a wack a mole dynamic where people just start coming into the country in other ways. Supposedly half of illegal immigrants are already visa overstays.

    • Agree: Nico
    • Replies: @englishmike
    @Guy de Champlagne


    I’m not against the wall but, even if we somehow win the continual fight to keep it manned and maintained properly, it’s just going to create a wack a mole dynamic where people just start coming into the country in other ways. Supposedly half of illegal immigrants are already visa overstays..
     
    Is that a reason for not doing something about the other half?

    Replies: @Guy de Champlagne

    , @Jus' Sayin'...
    @Guy de Champlagne


    "...teaming up with economic liberals to use government regulation to punish those that employ, house, and bank with illegal immigrants...."
     
    Unfortunately, those same progs ("economic liberals") will then argue that we must supply these now unemployed people with welfare benefits, food stamps, Medicaid, and any other welfare program the progs can think of. Those same progs will also expect us to educate these newly unemployed illegals' children and pay through the nose for the crime that many will eventually commit. There is no way the progs plan on encouraging these people to obey our laws and leave our country. Only a self-deluding fool would imagine otherwise.

    Only the purposefully deluded can any longer imagine that "negotiating" with progs is even a break-even strategy. A prog's idea of compromise is continuing to ratchet policy in the direction he wants but at a slightly slower rate than he would like.

    The stoopid party establishment plays dumb and deliberately conspires with progs in this ratcheting process. I'd hoped for better from Trump.

    Replies: @Guy de Champlagne, @SteveRogers42

    , @Nico
    @Guy de Champlagne

    That, and building a wall as a symbol while perpetualizing DACA is simply an empty symbol and an especially pernicious smokescreen.

    , @Neoconned
    @Guy de Champlagne

    A lotta ppl here are postulating everybody from Kamala Harris to thay Ellison dude from Minnesota as our next Democrat presidential candidate.

    Im convinced now given her book and media appearances giving a multitude of excuses Madam Chairman isnt done w her run for the presidency.

    Trump is older than Clinton and yet we assume she wont run again? If Trump can why can't she?

    Replies: @AnotherDad, @Art Deco, @Art Deco, @SteveRogers42

    , @AB-
    @Guy de Champlagne


    This is the fallacy people on the right constantly fall into: thinking that anything that pisses off liberals and the cultural elite must be a great idea.
     
    It's even worse on the left; they have all the negros supporting unlimited immigration, even tho that effectivly eliminates any chance of their getting a toe hold in the economy. Same thing for the latinos.

    Then you have the brain dead asians voting against their interests, tho they seem to have wised up in the last coupld of months.

    Don't even start with the white left, that's the definition of brain dead...and worse.
    , @Lagertha
    @Guy de Champlagne

    sheesh....you are all so annoying, you men who should know how to fight. A wall, which we have in Finland (going all around the kilometers from Kotka to Inontekio (Lapland) ...is achievable....even with the words of the Sami.)

    Replies: @Lagertha

    , @Lagertha
    @Guy de Champlagne

    unlike you, I believe a wall now; a wall forever is victory. USA can not solve other countries' corruption, and corruption, corruption, corruption, corruption, corruption and more corruption. Most countries can not create anything.

    , @Lagertha
    @Guy de Champlagne

    you are such an idealist until it hits you personally...boring, btw; by the time you realize that.

    , @Lagertha
    @Guy de Champlagne

    I'm totally for the Wall. Duh. Mexico must stop desperate people coming to the wall and paying $$$$$ to get them across (they will never make-up the pay) the "Wall." Also, Mexico must stop exporting their poor...because...that's not Christian. Also, Mexico sucks...and, the USA CAN NOT SOLVE their suckitude.

    , @Lagertha
    @Guy de Champlagne

    I'm totally for the Wall. Duh. Mexico must stop desperate people coming to the wall and paying $$$$$ to get them across (they will never make-up the pay) the "Wall." Also, Mexico must stop exporting their poor...because...that's not Christian. Also, Mexico sucks...and, the USA can not solve their suckitude.

    , @AnotherDad
    @Guy de Champlagne


    This is the fallacy people on the right constantly fall into: thinking that anything that pisses off liberals and the cultural elite must be a great idea.
     
    Actually what pisses off the left usually is a pretty great idea.

    And in the case of the Wall it obviously is.

    Not going to rehash in depth everything that I and others have said for the Wall--it's obvious stuff. But the key points:
    -- security is multi-layered; if you're in a high crime neighborhood you don't leave your door unlocked just because you also have a shotgun; yes we need mandatory E-verify and raids in the HomeDepot parking lot ... but we also need to lock the front door
    -- the Wall makes a statement of seriousness and national sovereignty that we now lack; it says that American is a nation, with a border and the right to defend it; it says Americans are a people with the right to keep others out of our territory--all reasons the left hates the Wall
    -- with the Wall up and people unable to cross, you will dramatically stem the flow, because most people will simply stop trying to get in by border jumping;
    -- you'll actually get rid of a bunch of illegals now inside; they routinely go down to Mexico, because they are Mexicans and that's where they really live and where their families are; they'll go down eventually and find they can't get back and get on with their lives in their own nation
    -- the Wall is still there, still working still even after the next Democrat is elected; that's not true of most interior enforcement measures

    The Wall isn't all you need to do, but it's one of the things you must do.

    Replies: @International Jew

    , @Dave Pinsen
    @Guy de Champlagne

    You want to win the fight to keep it manned? How about this:

    1) Announce that the TSA is going to be shut down in 6 months, and airport screening turned over to airports.

    2) Create an auxiliary border patrol to supplement the current one, and hire every former TSA employee at 1.2x their current salary, plus generous relocation assistance to staff it.

    3) Hire an additional 50k auxiliaries, with preference given to black high school graduates with clean records.

    Get rid of an unpopular federal agency, provide good paying jobs to ~80k minorities, and maybe spur a bit of gentrification in the processs.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @SteveRogers42

  2. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    I say we build The Big Beautiful Wall out of kryptonite!

    http://screenrant.com/superman-immigrants-daca-comic-book/

    Superman Protects Undocumented Immigrants From White Supremacists

    Superman protects undocumented immigrants from armed white supremacists in a new issue from DC Comics. This incredibly-timely story hit stores on Wednesday, September 13, one week after President Trump announced the end of DACA: the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy, which President Obama established in 2012. This immigration policy deferred deportation for some individuals who entered the USA illegally as minors and made them eligible for work permits.

    • Replies: @CK
    @Anonymous

    Superman was also an illegal.
    Or if you believe that his spaceship was his womb; he was an anchor baby.

    , @SteveRogers42
    @Anonymous

    If Dr. Manhattan's still on the payroll, ol' Supe's days are numbered.

  3. Of course I’m all for a wall, but unfortunately, a wall is also an admission of partial defeat. It means we lack the will for effective interior enforcement.

    Israel didn’t bother to build a wall during the 1950s and 1960s. Arab raiders were deterred by the threat of retaliation on their villages. Not just that, but the threat extended to the Kingdom of Jordan (whose territory then included the West Bank) itself. To this day, on the West Bank, you can see Jordanian trench works and defense positions placed on east-facing slopes — ie not toward Israel but away from it — designed to intercept terrorists on their way to Israel.

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    @International Jew

    Israel wasn't facing economic migrants from Sub-Saharan Africa in the '50s and '60s.

    Replies: @BB753

    , @AnotherDad
    @International Jew


    Of course I’m all for a wall, but unfortunately, a wall is also an admission of partial defeat. It means we lack the will for effective interior enforcement.
     
    No it's not. It's an admission that a) you've got something worth protecting and b) you've got a problem--i.e. people outside who want to get in.

    Note, I do get your point. Our interior enforcement isn't what it should be. You could say the clamor for the Wall is a reflection of that. I'm on board with you there. But survival with occasional and piece work labor inside the US is quite possible. Always has been. And prior to the computer age employment verification could be difficult other than just saying "you look like a Mexican". So even if our interior enforcement was up to snuff, you'd still want a wall.

    Fundamentally if you have something to protect that other people want, having walls, fences, locks, guards, etc. etc., is all per spec. It's a sign of seriousness. Lack of it is a sign of un-seriousness.
    , @Buzz Mohawk
    @International Jew

    I'm all for raiding Mexican villages and threatening to attack Mexico City, if that's what you mean.

    But I still want a wall, for the same reason I have doors on my house.

  4. All advanced countries will be building walls soon. Steve gave us the reason just a few weeks ago. There is a looming demographic transformation in Africa. Here in the Americas much the same thing will be happening. Mexico will soon be building a wall along its southern borders.

    In the end of the fifteenth century the high walls came down all over Europe. Gunpowder had made high walls obsolete. It happened fast. Walls that had served cities and nations for centuries were obsolete overnight. Now walls will be going up again. Trump is merely moving with the trend.

    • Replies: @Opinionator
    @Pat Boyle

    Gunpowder had made high walls obsolete.

    How so?

    Replies: @El Dato, @Pat Boyle, @Dr. X

    , @Daniel Williams
    @Pat Boyle


    Trump is merely moving with the trend.
     
    He does seem to have an incredible knack for that, doesn't he?
    , @Anonym
    @Pat Boyle

    Yes, this is a good point. Wall building (and using your navy) will become the international consensus in the face of massive African immigration.

    I think that Trump will find a way to build a wall, even a "big, beautiful wall" given how much many times he has been featured on camera in front of thousands of people saying he's going to build one. As for Mexico paying for it, no one really cares. If he doesn't, it's an albatross around his neck and a record of failure for eternity. For a guy who brags about getting the government to build an ice rink properly in New York, this is not something he can avoid, even if its the Seabees or equivalent who get it done.

    Replies: @Romanian

  5. A wall is also a statement of national sovereignty. In our post-national, globalist world, it amounts to a declaration of war to the enemies of the nation state. I fear that the establishment will never allow a wall to be erected. Over their dead bodies.
    When Trump won, he thought being president was tantamount to being the CEO of a corporation, the real boss with executive powers. What he’s found out is that the POTUS has virtually no power when virtually the entire civil service, legislators, senators, judges and top brass in the military decide that they’re not going to obey his orders, as an outsider and iconoclast. With no support from Wall Street, the mainstream media, Harvard, Silicon Valley and most big corporations, there’s no way he can get anything done.
    You either play by their rules or they kick you out of power, in a soft coup.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @BB753

    "With no support from Wall Street, the mainstream media, Harvard, Silicon Valley and most big corporations, there’s no way he can get anything done."

    Which still makes him hell and gone better than Hillary would have been. I'll take a semi-lame duck who sends a message to the world that the people aren't drinking the koolaid, and slows (and in some cases reverses) a bit of the left agenda, than an establishment shill who floors the accelerator of the car driving straight off the cliff.

    Replies: @BB753

    , @Boethiuss
    @BB753


    When Trump won, he thought being president was tantamount to being the CEO of a corporation, the real boss with executive powers. What he’s found out is that the POTUS has virtually no power when virtually the entire civil service, legislators, senators, judges and top brass in the military decide that they’re not going to obey his orders, as an outsider and iconoclast. With no support from Wall Street, the mainstream media, Harvard, Silicon Valley and most big corporations, there’s no way he can get anything done.
     
    No, no, no, no no. In fact the reason why this is wrong was largelywhat motivated my comment that Steve made a post from.

    POTUS, in the abstract and in the case of recent examples, has lots and lots and lots of power. President Donald Trump, is pretty much useless. The Left basically made a rule where, what the President says goes, unless its Trump in which case it really doesn't count. Trump's own incompetence has made that stick. Most of the commentors here want to believe that it's because Trump is a nationalist, or opposes immigration, or what-not. But that's a crock. Things would be much different if it were President Bannon, or President Pat Buchanan, or Jeff Sessions, or anybody else.

    Donald Trump is a the point of vulnerability.

    Replies: @BB753

    , @lavoisier
    @BB753

    He is not powerless if he keeps his promises and fights for what he claims he believes.

    The American people will support him against the establishment if he keeps his promises.

    So far he is failing to do that. Failing miserably.

    If he thinks making friends with Ryan, Schumer and Pelosi is going to protect him from the deep state he is delusional.

    The only hope for Trump is to lead. And that means first and foremost keep your promises.

    END DACA and no new amnesty. Have a fireside chat with the American people and tell them that he is going to build the wall using a novel strategy. Let the traitorous establishment scum like Ryan, McCain, Graham, and Flake come out of the closet and defy him. That would demonstrate to even the low information white voter who keeps electing these vermin how stupid they have been voting for these traitors to the nation. Perhaps they will get red pilled and start opening up their minds to the possibility that their elected representatives are bought and paid for whores.

    Stop making excuses for Trump. Either he leads and takes a stand on these vitally important issues or he is finished. He was elected to lead, not to negotiate with the devils.

    He needs to get smart fast.

    Replies: @BB753

    , @ben tillman
    @BB753


    A wall is also a statement of national sovereignty. In our post-national, globalist world, it amounts to a declaration of war to the enemies of the nation state. I fear that the establishment will never allow a wall to be erected. Over their dead bodies.

    When Trump won, he thought being president was tantamount to being the CEO of a corporation, the real boss with executive powers. What he’s found out is that the POTUS has virtually no power when virtually the entire civil service, legislators, senators, judges and top brass in the military decide that they’re not going to obey his orders, as an outsider and iconoclast.
     
    He signs their paychecks. Surely, he can find some leverage somewhere.

    Replies: @BB753

  6. At a much deeper lever it’s who/whom. If somehow, by any possible means we build the wall, we’re the who and without it we’re the whom.

    I don’t know that this quite captures it. What is also driving opposition to a wall is fear of Americans developing (or reviving) a true national group identity. The acts of supporting, establishing, and maintaining a wall stimulate psychologically such an identity. So it’s not so much about what who is specifically doing to whom, which is the context in which Steve often employs the concept. Rather, it is about exclusion taking hold in the abstract and in the general. It is about having the will and ability to define who is “who” (or who is “whom”), the power to have a group identity.

    That, and the more obvious point that a wall (like the one we funded for Israel) would be reasonably effective.

    • Agree: Barnard
  7. @Pat Boyle
    All advanced countries will be building walls soon. Steve gave us the reason just a few weeks ago. There is a looming demographic transformation in Africa. Here in the Americas much the same thing will be happening. Mexico will soon be building a wall along its southern borders.

    In the end of the fifteenth century the high walls came down all over Europe. Gunpowder had made high walls obsolete. It happened fast. Walls that had served cities and nations for centuries were obsolete overnight. Now walls will be going up again. Trump is merely moving with the trend.

    Replies: @Opinionator, @Daniel Williams, @Anonym

    Gunpowder had made high walls obsolete.

    How so?

    • Replies: @El Dato
    @Opinionator

    That's easy: You could rip the wall down by blowing it up or throwing stuff against its flat, rather thin stonework with considerably more force than a balista could:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_engine#Modern_era

    Defense work quickly morphed into:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle#Bastions_and_star_forts_.2816th_century.29

    Modern "walls" will probably rapidly be light wirework patrolled by drones (flying or walking). Easier on animal migration, too. Hopefully the drones will not be "lethal force" dispensing, they might even ask you for ID in a professional manner.

    Replies: @Anonym, @SteveRogers42

    , @Pat Boyle
    @Opinionator

    Briefly, military historians trace the end of high walls to the Italian campaign of Louis XII of France. He was not that impressive a conqueror but he invaded Italy with cannon. Every high wall he met he simply knocked down.

    You can see something like that in the movie "The Pride and the Pasion" with Cary Grant and Frank Sinatra. They have a big cannon that lobs cannon balls at a fortress with high walls. The balls knock a big chunk in the wall and the top of the wall sheds rumble that makes a handy staircase into the fort.

    Essentially any good cannon can do that. They make a breach and that allows ground troops to enter. The first high walls may well have been Jericho. No one could successfully enter most forts for millennia except by siege - the inhabitants starved and waited for some outside assistance. That all changed in a few years. Soon everyone started building low walled fortresses designed to adsorb or deflect cannon shot.

    It happen very fast. It's called the Gunpowder Revolution. It swept from Western Europe East only reaching China much later.

    Replies: @athEIst

    , @Dr. X
    @Opinionator


    How so?
     
    Your armed forces can simply shoot people coming across your frontier.
  8. Yeah, but if they don’t build a wall, the who-whom relationship is more like an assault whereas if they do build the wall the who-whom relationship is more like surgery!

    Anyway, I guess I don’t care that much about the physical wall as long as immigration stops and we see some deportations as well. (Actually, I’d rather not have the wall, all else being equal.) If Trump came out tomorrow and said, “I changed my mind about the wall, but we’re going to do XYZ about stopping the flow”, I’d be okay with that as long as XYZ were really effective and Trump was authentically interested in stopping immigration. The main thing about the wall now is the campaign promise angle. Is Trump reliable, or did he get Javanka’d? Is that the same as who-whom? Maybe it is, so maybe I agree with Boethiuss.

  9. @Pat Boyle
    All advanced countries will be building walls soon. Steve gave us the reason just a few weeks ago. There is a looming demographic transformation in Africa. Here in the Americas much the same thing will be happening. Mexico will soon be building a wall along its southern borders.

    In the end of the fifteenth century the high walls came down all over Europe. Gunpowder had made high walls obsolete. It happened fast. Walls that had served cities and nations for centuries were obsolete overnight. Now walls will be going up again. Trump is merely moving with the trend.

    Replies: @Opinionator, @Daniel Williams, @Anonym

    Trump is merely moving with the trend.

    He does seem to have an incredible knack for that, doesn’t he?

  10. With respect, you have completely missed the point of a wall.

    A wall would have a psychological impact, sure, and possibly that would be important, but it would have almost nothing to do with border security.

    Why does the sociopathic CEO of facebook have no problem with trespassers invading his privacy on his massive estates? It’s not the wall. It’s the knowledge that if someone does sneak onto his property, they will be there illegally, and sooner or later they will be found and arrested and likely fined and jailed. So people mostly don’t try.

    Until about 1970 the United States had no wall on it’s southern border with Mexico, and virtually no illegal immigration. Because the law was enforced. Sure, a few snuck in, but they lived in fear, it was difficult and unpleasant. And that discouraged others.

    The notion that if we build a wall, then illegals already here can breath easy, is simply false. If illegals already here are rewarded for breaking the law, far more will follow, wall or no. Remember: even today, most illegals enter illegally. What’s the point of a wall, if people know they can enter as tourists and just stay as long as they like and get benefits and medical care etc. without fear of being deported? Answer: no point at all.

    It is not necessary that the current illegal population be deported. it is necessary that they suffer for their crimes, to discourage others.

    And if you think this is harsh, join with me in cursing people like Milton Friedman and Julian Simon and Paul Krugman, whose corrupt preaching that nirvana can only be achieved if people breed like rodents, is responsible for this conflict in the first place. May they and their descendants be stripped of all wealth and sent to Bangladesh where they will be forced to live out their lives in misery working for 50 cents an hour. Because people are the ultimate resource. If you consider people to be a resource, that is, like cattle.

    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein
    @TG


    It’s the knowledge that if someone does sneak onto his property, they will be there illegally, and sooner or later they will be found and arrested and likely fined and jailed. So people mostly don’t try.
     
    That is the crux of the matter. All physical security measures---locks, walls, gates, alarms---exist for two purposes: To deter casual trespassers (i.e. provide privacy) and to delay serious trespassers long enough to mount a response. Everything ultimately comes down to the political will to enforce the law. How long would the money in the bank safe last if you knew there were no cops with shotguns coming to stop you if you tried to crack it? I'm guessing every bank in the world would be picked bare within 24 hours if that were the case.

    Not only does there not seem to be any political will to enforce the law in this country, but the institutions of government are not even set up to enforce the law and wouldn't be able to if they wanted to. That is why the establishment fears the nationalist movement they saw aborning in the Trump campaign, because we actually wanted to rearrange the machinery of state in order to make America a sovereign nation again.
    , @IHTG
    @TG


    Until about 1970 the United States had no wall on it’s southern border with Mexico, and virtually no illegal immigration. Because the law was enforced.
     
    I doubt that was the only reason.

    Replies: @Cloudbuster

    , @415 reasons
    @TG

    Zuckerberg's house in San Francisco does actually have a pretty substantial fence.

    Replies: @Jim Don Bob

  11. @Anonymous
    I say we build The Big Beautiful Wall out of kryptonite!

    http://screenrant.com/superman-immigrants-daca-comic-book/

    Superman Protects Undocumented Immigrants From White Supremacists

    Superman protects undocumented immigrants from armed white supremacists in a new issue from DC Comics. This incredibly-timely story hit stores on Wednesday, September 13, one week after President Trump announced the end of DACA: the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy, which President Obama established in 2012. This immigration policy deferred deportation for some individuals who entered the USA illegally as minors and made them eligible for work permits.
     

    Replies: @CK, @SteveRogers42

    Superman was also an illegal.
    Or if you believe that his spaceship was his womb; he was an anchor baby.

  12. @Guy de Champlagne
    This is the fallacy people on the right constantly fall into: thinking that anything that pisses off liberals and the cultural elite must be a great idea. The wall is a useful gauge of Trump's broader intentions towards immigration at any given moment. But actually fixing the immigration issue would involve teaming up with economic liberals to use government regulation to punish those that employ, house, and bank with illegal immigrants. These are economic migrants and the only way to fix the problem is through economic regulation.

    I'm not against the wall but, even if we somehow win the continual fight to keep it manned and maintained properly, it's just going to create a wack a mole dynamic where people just start coming into the country in other ways. Supposedly half of illegal immigrants are already visa overstays.

    Replies: @englishmike, @Jus' Sayin'..., @Nico, @Neoconned, @AB-, @Lagertha, @Lagertha, @Lagertha, @Lagertha, @Lagertha, @AnotherDad, @Dave Pinsen

    I’m not against the wall but, even if we somehow win the continual fight to keep it manned and maintained properly, it’s just going to create a wack a mole dynamic where people just start coming into the country in other ways. Supposedly half of illegal immigrants are already visa overstays..

    Is that a reason for not doing something about the other half?

    • Replies: @Guy de Champlagne
    @englishmike

    It is if that other half will just change their tactics to get around the wall or if the wall won't be manned and maintained. I think of it like drugs, where the economic incentive to import drugs has just resulted in people coming up with ever more inventive systems to bypass whatever obstacle has been put in their way.

  13. “The wall will come later,” Trump tells reporters leaving White House

    Mañana!

    Someone should do a cartoon of a slumped and sleepy Trump under a large sombrero, being asked by Uncle Sam (or John Doe) when that wall’s gonna be built.

    • Agree: Lot
    • Replies: @Dot Not Feather
    @YetAnotherAnon

    Or alternatively "The wall WILL come later."

    But the ways of Trump are as inscrutable as any God so who knows.

    , @Anonymous
    @YetAnotherAnon

    "Someone should do a cartoon of a slumped and sleepy Trump under a large sombrero, being asked by Uncle Sam (or John Doe) when that wall’s gonna be built."

    Trump's been pushing since Day 1 to keep good on his promises to the American people who elected him, and the judiciary, and both sides of the aisle in Congress have been thwarting it every way they can. In the face of all of this, he is increasingly forced to minimize and compromise on it to get anything done. He is after all, only 1 man. The checks and balances built into the system to protect us weren't designed to deal with overwhelming treason throughout the government.

    What Trump's inability to push forward an agenda for the wall, illegals, and Muslim immigration that as clear as a bell is in the best interest and safety of the American people and their descendants, really represents is how bad things have gotten in the US.

    Replies: @YetAnotherAnon, @Anonymous

  14. If we build a wall, and let’s suppose it works pretty well, the possibility of massive illegal immigration ceases to be an ongoing threat and becomes more of a historical idiosyncrasy.

    You are supposing facts not in evidence. Even if the wall and its supporting systems was effective (a wall by itself does little – it still has to be monitored and patrolled, etc.) the US-Mexico border is not the only point of entry into the country. Any time you have massive differences in standards of living there is a lot of pressure from those on the low side of the equation. And there is a lot of $ to be made smuggling people in. Chinese immigrants pay up to $80,000 to get smuggled in.

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16422719

    (That was 10 years ago – I don’t know how much it is now).

    If the wall is built that only make the pressure worse. So people look for other ways to get in. A lot of illegals are people who arrived here on a plane, with a visa, and then overstayed. Expect people to fly to Canada and try to sneak across the Northern border. Maybe people will come by boat. With false papers. Claiming refugee status. Thru tunnels under the wall. Etc.

    If the Wall was really effective it would end drug smuggling across the Mexican border. What are the chances that’s really going to happen?

    • Replies: @Rod1963
    @Jack D

    Nice spin. Just do nothing, roll over and die.

    The fact the progs are screaming like stuck pigs along with the chambers of commerce, says to me it's effective. Progs never bitch about anything that is harmless to them.

    The wall to the Left means, even if they are in power, they will have to tear it down in places. They can't do that without opening a can of worms.

    Walls work for Hungary, Israel and Saudi Arabia. That's good enough for me.

    But someone says they won't work on Mexicans. Not likely.

    Going to Canada you say? Excellent, that will filter out a lot of them.

    We can build a wall on the North side as well. It's not hard, just copy the one Israelis have in the Sinai border. It may come to that anyway as Canada is going out of it's way of coddling Muslim terrorists. Be a great jobs program as well for combat vets.

    Replies: @Guy de Champlagne, @OilcanFloyd

    , @AM
    @Jack D


    If the Wall was really effective it would end drug smuggling across the Mexican border. What are the chances that’s really going to happen?
     
    If prisons were really effective, they would end all murder and theft. What is so hard about the concept of putting up a fence keeps almost everyone out that you don't want? People do it in their neighborhoods all the time.
    , @Opinionator
    @Jack D

    Do you at least agree though that we have a right to build a Wall?

    Replies: @Jack D

    , @AnotherDad
    @Jack D


    If the wall is built that only make the pressure worse.
     
    No it doesn't. Ok, a little bit, but not very much.

    The "pressure" is the relative standard of living and the other amenities. Five bucks a day versus fifty bucks a day at the bottom end. That doesn't change, or changes very little only to the extent that the Wall works and raises the standard of living for low skilled people in the US or drops it for low skilled people in Mexico and Central America.

    If the wall is built that only make the pressure worse. So people look for other ways to get in. A lot of illegals are people who arrived here on a plane, with a visa, and then overstayed. Expect people to fly to Canada and try to sneak across the Northern border. Maybe people will come by boat. With false papers. Claiming refugee status. Thru tunnels under the wall. Etc.
     
    The "pressure" is actually much much greater for Indians. There are about 1 billion of them who are by our standards very poor and would love to come to the US. Even if a significant number are homebodies, there are still a few hundred million who would like to be here. But they aren't here. Why? And why are Mexicans--despite being much, much, much better off--here by the millions?

    Yes, some people will try other methods. But if those other methods were easier, they would be using them now instead of marching through the desert, and paying good money to cross with coyotes, potentially subjecting yourself to theft, rape, death and with a decent chance the border patrol may catch you and send you back. Hint: because it's the easiest way in for them. The other ways they couldn't do at all or were much harder, much more expensive.

    This stuff really isn't very complicated.


    If the Wall was really effective it would end drug smuggling across the Mexican border. What are the chances that’s really going to happen?
     
    I don't even know what to say about this sort of argument. Maybe put this on the SAT verbal?
    , @JSM
    @Jack D

    If the wall is built that only make the pressure worse. So people look for other ways to get in. A lot of illegals are people who arrived here on a plane, with a visa, and then overstayed. Expect people to fly to Canada and try to sneak across the Northern border. Maybe people will come by boat. With false papers. Claiming refugee status. Thru tunnels under the wall. Etc.

    Yabbada yabbada yabbada


    The harder you make it to come in, the fewer people that will make it in.

    You're just a dissembling anti-White like all the rest who make silly arguments against the Wall
    but... Israel's got one. Go talk to them.

    , @DRA
    @Jack D

    NAFTA has gone some way to reduce the standard of living differential between USA and Mexico, which is why so many folks are now coming from Central America, and the rest of the world, THROUGH Mexico. Rather than FROM Mexico. If it were cheaper/easier for them to fly here, presumably they would.

    , @DRA
    @Jack D

    The obvious way to stop drug smuggling is to legalize drugs and produce them here. It could be especially rough on ignorant people, folks with a short time preference, and those with low IQs....

    However, ever wonder how many drug deaths are due to lack of quality control? And how much violence is caused through the lawless drug markets where there is no legal recourse for resolving disputes? And how much general crime is due to people trying to fund their habit?

    But of course, more widespread use of many drugs could increase risk for nonusers as well. Certainly accidents of many types could increase, and some drugs tend to generate senseless violence.

    Illegal immigration seems to me to be a distinctly different problem from drugs. Both challenge our wisdom and compassion, but they mostly have to be addressed on their own merits.

    Replies: @athEIst

    , @SteveRogers42
    @Jack D

    I don't know, and neither do you. Let's build the frickin' Wall and find out.

  15. @Pat Boyle
    All advanced countries will be building walls soon. Steve gave us the reason just a few weeks ago. There is a looming demographic transformation in Africa. Here in the Americas much the same thing will be happening. Mexico will soon be building a wall along its southern borders.

    In the end of the fifteenth century the high walls came down all over Europe. Gunpowder had made high walls obsolete. It happened fast. Walls that had served cities and nations for centuries were obsolete overnight. Now walls will be going up again. Trump is merely moving with the trend.

    Replies: @Opinionator, @Daniel Williams, @Anonym

    Yes, this is a good point. Wall building (and using your navy) will become the international consensus in the face of massive African immigration.

    I think that Trump will find a way to build a wall, even a “big, beautiful wall” given how much many times he has been featured on camera in front of thousands of people saying he’s going to build one. As for Mexico paying for it, no one really cares. If he doesn’t, it’s an albatross around his neck and a record of failure for eternity. For a guy who brags about getting the government to build an ice rink properly in New York, this is not something he can avoid, even if its the Seabees or equivalent who get it done.

    • Replies: @Romanian
    @Anonym

    I love your Seabees. I wish my government would get them to build the fucking highway connectors through the mountain passes, thereby better connecting the historic regions of Romania. The usual sabotage from abroad, indolence and corruption from within would not work with a yank crew on the ground and on contract.

  16. In related immigration news, one of the Tube Firebombers was arrested. A genuine, teen-age, Syrian Refugee. Doing the jobs Britons won’t do.

    Trump’s Luck, such as it is.

    The only way logically a society without walls and borders works is to enslave almost every White man to endless churn away to create enough free wealth that the masses of the Third World just don’t seize Zucks and Buffetts and Soros’s wealth. [Buffett is at least as evil as Soros, his team-up with 3G has resulted in massive layoffs in Kraft-Heinz and in particular running production lines non-stop. Which is guaranteed to kill thousands as not frequently breaking down and thoroughly cleaning food production lines is how salmonella gets into things like peanut butter and cheese.

    But hey Buffett needs more billions.

    This stuff happens because Billionaires fear no one. Lack of fear is a bad thing. Russians still like Putin because at least he made the Oligarchs fear him too; and it would be a good thing if spectacular examples were made of Buffett and his entire family, or Zuck’s, or at least one of them. Xi in China understands this, hence his bringing to heel the Oligarchs there.

    Voting, elections, are useless. Rather it is FEAR alone that can win; obviously being smart is part of that. Muslims get away with firebombing the Tube and Blacks beating people nearly to death because the powers WANT THEM TO DO THIS. But no man or woman is immortal, lacks secrets, has no family, no leverage.

    A distributed, “Army of Davids” take-down of say, Warren Buffett’s son or Mark Zuckerberg’s sister would be a good thing. The message would be received. The lesson of Hillary, Huma, and Weiner is how corrupt and venal and stupid our “above the law” people who rule us are; and how vulnerable they can be if we really push things.

  17. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    кто кого?

    From Isabella of Spain By William Thomas Walsh (Sheed and Ward, 1935):

    Wherever they went, the Jews threw open to them the gates of the principal cities…

    “Without any love for the soil where they lived, without any of those affections that ennoble a people, and finally without sentiments of generosity,” says Amador de los Rios [Estudios sobre los Judíos de España] “they aspired only to feed their avarice and to accomplish the ruin of the Goths; taking the opportunity to manifest their rancour, and boasting of the hatreds that they had hoarded up so many centuries.”

    • Replies: @Anon
    @Anonymous

    Why do I have the feeling that this book is not available in my local library?

    Replies: @Bleuteaux, @res

  18. @Opinionator
    @Pat Boyle

    Gunpowder had made high walls obsolete.

    How so?

    Replies: @El Dato, @Pat Boyle, @Dr. X

    That’s easy: You could rip the wall down by blowing it up or throwing stuff against its flat, rather thin stonework with considerably more force than a balista could:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_engine#Modern_era

    Defense work quickly morphed into:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle#Bastions_and_star_forts_.2816th_century.29

    Modern “walls” will probably rapidly be light wirework patrolled by drones (flying or walking). Easier on animal migration, too. Hopefully the drones will not be “lethal force” dispensing, they might even ask you for ID in a professional manner.

    • Replies: @Anonym
    @El Dato

    Modern “walls” will probably rapidly be light wirework patrolled by drones (flying or walking). Easier on animal migration, too. Hopefully the drones will not be “lethal force” dispensing, they might even ask you for ID in a professional manner.

    I like the idea of giving them 20 seconds to comply.

    https://youtu.be/Hzlt7IbTp6M

    Replies: @the cruncher

    , @SteveRogers42
    @El Dato

    Non-lethal tech is readily available:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Denial_System

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Range_Acoustic_Device

  19. @YetAnotherAnon

    "The wall will come later," Trump tells reporters leaving White House
     
    Mañana!

    Someone should do a cartoon of a slumped and sleepy Trump under a large sombrero, being asked by Uncle Sam (or John Doe) when that wall's gonna be built.

    Replies: @Dot Not Feather, @Anonymous

    Or alternatively “The wall WILL come later.”

    But the ways of Trump are as inscrutable as any God so who knows.

  20. @Opinionator
    @Pat Boyle

    Gunpowder had made high walls obsolete.

    How so?

    Replies: @El Dato, @Pat Boyle, @Dr. X

    Briefly, military historians trace the end of high walls to the Italian campaign of Louis XII of France. He was not that impressive a conqueror but he invaded Italy with cannon. Every high wall he met he simply knocked down.

    You can see something like that in the movie “The Pride and the Pasion” with Cary Grant and Frank Sinatra. They have a big cannon that lobs cannon balls at a fortress with high walls. The balls knock a big chunk in the wall and the top of the wall sheds rumble that makes a handy staircase into the fort.

    Essentially any good cannon can do that. They make a breach and that allows ground troops to enter. The first high walls may well have been Jericho. No one could successfully enter most forts for millennia except by siege – the inhabitants starved and waited for some outside assistance. That all changed in a few years. Soon everyone started building low walled fortresses designed to adsorb or deflect cannon shot.

    It happen very fast. It’s called the Gunpowder Revolution. It swept from Western Europe East only reaching China much later.

    • Replies: @athEIst
    @Pat Boyle

    It swept from Western Europe East only reaching China much later.

    Where it had been invented hundreds of years before. But the Chinese never thought to hurl round rocks with it, They did have fireworks though.

  21. Anonymous [AKA "anonymous-out-of-fear"] says:

    I understand how “build the wall” was a good slogan for the campaign, to attach some bold new action to the candidate. But to push forward its actual construction, I think “finish the wall” is a lot better since it normalizes the wall, and makes it sound inevitable.

    • Replies: @Daniel Williams
    @Anonymous


    I think “finish the wall” is a lot better since it normalizes the wall, and makes it sound inevitable.
     
    Maybe that'll be his slogan in 2020.
  22. I see the wall as a symbol. The wall is a symbol that America is a serious country with the right to control who comes into the country. It represents the repeal of the Zeroeth Amendment, which is why Chuck Schumer doesn’t want it built.

  23. @TG
    With respect, you have completely missed the point of a wall.

    A wall would have a psychological impact, sure, and possibly that would be important, but it would have almost nothing to do with border security.

    Why does the sociopathic CEO of facebook have no problem with trespassers invading his privacy on his massive estates? It's not the wall. It's the knowledge that if someone does sneak onto his property, they will be there illegally, and sooner or later they will be found and arrested and likely fined and jailed. So people mostly don't try.

    Until about 1970 the United States had no wall on it's southern border with Mexico, and virtually no illegal immigration. Because the law was enforced. Sure, a few snuck in, but they lived in fear, it was difficult and unpleasant. And that discouraged others.

    The notion that if we build a wall, then illegals already here can breath easy, is simply false. If illegals already here are rewarded for breaking the law, far more will follow, wall or no. Remember: even today, most illegals enter illegally. What's the point of a wall, if people know they can enter as tourists and just stay as long as they like and get benefits and medical care etc. without fear of being deported? Answer: no point at all.

    It is not necessary that the current illegal population be deported. it is necessary that they suffer for their crimes, to discourage others.

    And if you think this is harsh, join with me in cursing people like Milton Friedman and Julian Simon and Paul Krugman, whose corrupt preaching that nirvana can only be achieved if people breed like rodents, is responsible for this conflict in the first place. May they and their descendants be stripped of all wealth and sent to Bangladesh where they will be forced to live out their lives in misery working for 50 cents an hour. Because people are the ultimate resource. If you consider people to be a resource, that is, like cattle.

    Replies: @Intelligent Dasein, @IHTG, @415 reasons

    It’s the knowledge that if someone does sneak onto his property, they will be there illegally, and sooner or later they will be found and arrested and likely fined and jailed. So people mostly don’t try.

    That is the crux of the matter. All physical security measures—locks, walls, gates, alarms—exist for two purposes: To deter casual trespassers (i.e. provide privacy) and to delay serious trespassers long enough to mount a response. Everything ultimately comes down to the political will to enforce the law. How long would the money in the bank safe last if you knew there were no cops with shotguns coming to stop you if you tried to crack it? I’m guessing every bank in the world would be picked bare within 24 hours if that were the case.

    Not only does there not seem to be any political will to enforce the law in this country, but the institutions of government are not even set up to enforce the law and wouldn’t be able to if they wanted to. That is why the establishment fears the nationalist movement they saw aborning in the Trump campaign, because we actually wanted to rearrange the machinery of state in order to make America a sovereign nation again.

  24. OK, Mexican illegal immigrants are not generally good for US–that has been documented by Heather Mac Donald, among others. But the real danger to US is the Negro–native born and immigrant. From a policy perspective we should as a society be demeaning–and punishing–Negro females who are having these future predators out of wedlock. Now one can make the argument that these women are African, and that’s typical reckless African behavior. Fine. Bottom line: we need to prioritize Negro birth control through economic coercion.

  25. OT:

    Steve’s most important graph is in the comments.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/07/japan-mystery-low-birth-rate/534291/

    The best comment though is:

    Another major problem with Japanese fertility is their pixelated genitals. Not many people know this, but 20% of all Japanese newborns undergo data corruption in the birth canal.

    • LOL: Stealth, TWS
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @wren

    Its one of the downside of their economic system and arguably, of a high trust society. The workers are screwed pretty hard. Foreign capital can't enter and men expect declining real wages.

    All bad things.

    Many WN admire Japan, conveniently ignoring that the same attitude has severe consequences. Perhaps they'll maintain as a people - or perhaps, this overall hopelessness will end up breaking up. Its not that they are poor(of course not), but the sense of relative poverty to China or the USA attracts many converts to progressive causes.

    If the US opens the borders and its people have more hope, why shouldn't Japan?, they ask. Why do we need to suffer such low wages?

    Replies: @AM

  26. Equal Justice Initiative published a third edition of “Lynching in America: Confronting the Legacy of Racial Terror”:

    “It is dubious to claim that all or even most individuals lynched for violent offenses had committed them, considering that whites’ accusations of rape or murder were rarely subject to serious scrutiny when lodged against black people.”

    https://lynchinginamerica.eji.org/report-landing

    • Replies: @El Dato
    @Sajmon

    https://lynchinginamerica.eji.org/report/


    6. We found that most terror lynchings can best be understood as having the features of one or more of the following: (1) lynchings that resulted from a wildly distorted fear of interracial sex; (2) lynchings in response to casual social transgressions; (3) lynchings based on allegations of serious violent crime; (4) public spectacle lynchings; (5) lynchings that escalated into large-scale violence targeting the entire African American community; and (6) lynchings of sharecroppers, ministers, and community leaders who resisted mistreatment, which were most common between 1915 and 1940.
     
    Well, anyone who has ever survived schoolyard activities as the underdog knows exactly how this social dynamic works. Relax the rule of law and bad stuff is going down.
  27. While you’re at it, bored identity would like to remind y’all of how much Mexican Narco-Padrones admire Holywood Reproduction.

    Their passion for cinematography goes above Scarface, or Carlito’s Way.

    bored identity was told that Unión De Cartelistas extremely paid attention to historical drama Argo, while Sean Penn is definitelly most adored actor among El Chapo’s succesors.

    Carlos Muñoz Portal obviously didn’t get that memo:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4891386/Location-scout-Narcos-fatally-shot-Mexico.html

  28. From Steve’s favorite newspaper:

    At that point, according to two people familiar with the exchange, one of whom was in the room, Mr. Trump called on his chief of staff, John F. Kelly, the former Homeland Security secretary who has long warned against instability on the southern border.

    Mr. Kelly launched into a passionate call for stouter border defenses, including his general support for a beefed-up barrier, offering a remarkably pessimistic view of Mexico’s security situation and political stability.

    He likened Mexico, one of the United States’ most important trading and law enforcement partners, to Venezuela under the regime of Hugo Chávez, the former leader, suggesting it was on the verge of a collapse that would have repercussions in the United States, according to two people who attended the meeting.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/14/us/trump-schumer-pelosi-daca.html

    • Replies: @El Dato
    @Achilles

    That was indeed the theme of 2014.

    Is Mexico a Failed State? Looks like it

    I doubt it has gotten much better since.

  29. @TG
    With respect, you have completely missed the point of a wall.

    A wall would have a psychological impact, sure, and possibly that would be important, but it would have almost nothing to do with border security.

    Why does the sociopathic CEO of facebook have no problem with trespassers invading his privacy on his massive estates? It's not the wall. It's the knowledge that if someone does sneak onto his property, they will be there illegally, and sooner or later they will be found and arrested and likely fined and jailed. So people mostly don't try.

    Until about 1970 the United States had no wall on it's southern border with Mexico, and virtually no illegal immigration. Because the law was enforced. Sure, a few snuck in, but they lived in fear, it was difficult and unpleasant. And that discouraged others.

    The notion that if we build a wall, then illegals already here can breath easy, is simply false. If illegals already here are rewarded for breaking the law, far more will follow, wall or no. Remember: even today, most illegals enter illegally. What's the point of a wall, if people know they can enter as tourists and just stay as long as they like and get benefits and medical care etc. without fear of being deported? Answer: no point at all.

    It is not necessary that the current illegal population be deported. it is necessary that they suffer for their crimes, to discourage others.

    And if you think this is harsh, join with me in cursing people like Milton Friedman and Julian Simon and Paul Krugman, whose corrupt preaching that nirvana can only be achieved if people breed like rodents, is responsible for this conflict in the first place. May they and their descendants be stripped of all wealth and sent to Bangladesh where they will be forced to live out their lives in misery working for 50 cents an hour. Because people are the ultimate resource. If you consider people to be a resource, that is, like cattle.

    Replies: @Intelligent Dasein, @IHTG, @415 reasons

    Until about 1970 the United States had no wall on it’s southern border with Mexico, and virtually no illegal immigration. Because the law was enforced.

    I doubt that was the only reason.

    • Replies: @Cloudbuster
    @IHTG

    The definitive scholarly work on the correlation-causation fallacy:

    https://youtu.be/eXRM3lFRwRI

  30. A wall can stop the invading Mexican hordes from stealing our factories and taking them home to Mexico.

    The wall should be electrified and backed up with border collies trained to round up pedestrians and herd them into pens.

    We can also take economic steps like closing Chipotle Mexican grills, banning chihuahuas and taco sauce, and changing the name of New Mexico to New Texaco.

  31. @Guy de Champlagne
    This is the fallacy people on the right constantly fall into: thinking that anything that pisses off liberals and the cultural elite must be a great idea. The wall is a useful gauge of Trump's broader intentions towards immigration at any given moment. But actually fixing the immigration issue would involve teaming up with economic liberals to use government regulation to punish those that employ, house, and bank with illegal immigrants. These are economic migrants and the only way to fix the problem is through economic regulation.

    I'm not against the wall but, even if we somehow win the continual fight to keep it manned and maintained properly, it's just going to create a wack a mole dynamic where people just start coming into the country in other ways. Supposedly half of illegal immigrants are already visa overstays.

    Replies: @englishmike, @Jus' Sayin'..., @Nico, @Neoconned, @AB-, @Lagertha, @Lagertha, @Lagertha, @Lagertha, @Lagertha, @AnotherDad, @Dave Pinsen

    “…teaming up with economic liberals to use government regulation to punish those that employ, house, and bank with illegal immigrants….”

    Unfortunately, those same progs (“economic liberals”) will then argue that we must supply these now unemployed people with welfare benefits, food stamps, Medicaid, and any other welfare program the progs can think of. Those same progs will also expect us to educate these newly unemployed illegals’ children and pay through the nose for the crime that many will eventually commit. There is no way the progs plan on encouraging these people to obey our laws and leave our country. Only a self-deluding fool would imagine otherwise.

    Only the purposefully deluded can any longer imagine that “negotiating” with progs is even a break-even strategy. A prog’s idea of compromise is continuing to ratchet policy in the direction he wants but at a slightly slower rate than he would like.

    The stoopid party establishment plays dumb and deliberately conspires with progs in this ratcheting process. I’d hoped for better from Trump.

    • Replies: @Guy de Champlagne
    @Jus' Sayin'...

    There are a lot of democrats who don't like immigration, even when it's presented as about the immigrants themselves, and you could substantially increase that number by talking instead about the businesses and wealthy individuals that profit off of and exploit immigrants, and cast them as the villain instead. If republicans tend to lose in these negotiations that certainly in part because they're stupider, but it's also because they don't actually want to reduce immigration. Republicans want immigration because the party is controlled and financed by the economically conservative (pro big business and pro wealthy) factions.

    Even if teaming with liberals is impossible, which I reject, that doesn't change the fact that the way to solve the problem is through business regulation not through a wall.

    Replies: @bomag

    , @SteveRogers42
    @Jus' Sayin'...

    See comment #53.

  32. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    The left hates the wall because it’s like a concrete, unfuzzy enforcement of immigration laws they — undemocratically — would rather defy or slow-walk than put to the national public for repeal. It takes the power of discretion from captured bureaucracies and therefore restores power to their enemies, from institutions they firmly control to those just outside their grasp.

    It’s as if by demographically rigging their fiefdoms (urban centers, if not border states) they’ve concentrated their powers into a narrow beam than can cut through the nation’s virtual wall of laws.

    • Replies: @SteveRogers42
    @Anonymous

    "The judge has made his ruling, now let him enforce it".

  33. >when you really think about it, losing is winning
    No.
    >having an actual immigration and border control policy will eventually reduce tension and effectively ease the path to proper citizenship of some who are here.
    Okay. And the completely unmonitored flood will have been stopped, and the undiscussed practice will have been discussed, and the numbers are night and day different.
    >If we do X
    Before Trump’s victory we were third work peasants, spat upon by hostile alien elites from behind the walls of armed compounds. We had no voice and no power whatsoever. There was a cultural engineering effort to eliminate the Second Amendment, to delegitimize self-defense, and it even extended to police. The elite’s main personal cultural motif was to show how different from us they could be, going to extremes of mock-Satanic and mock-cannibalistic ritual, justified as “performance art” that peasants would never understand.
    Now they’re afraid of us.
    >we were better under Obama
    Maybe I missed a phone book of data but nothing has been offered to justify this assertion. It is completely unacceptable. It’s not even wrong in Pauling’s phrase.
    Do you like Jeff Sessions better running Justice or as a lone crank in the Hall of Pedophiles and Lobbyists?
    Do you like 400 pedophile arrests a year, amid over-criminalization of gun ownership and whiteness, and catch-and-release immigration “enforcement,” and ICE taken off immigration altogether so they can go after the holocaust that is illegal downloading, better than three times as many pedos arrested halfway through the year and agencies actually doing their jobs?
    You’ve been watching TV, haven’t you, Boethius?

  34. The best wall would be a biometric Social Security card that you have to produce to buy groceries, fill up your car with gas, use a credit card, open a bank account, etc.. It’s useless depending on employers not to employ illegals, even with e-verify. They’ll figure a way to get around it, pay with cash for instance. But even cash purchases in grocery stores and filling stations could require an ID. Of course you would also have to have biometric visas, but that’s no problem.

    • Replies: @3g4me
    @Luke Lea

    @33 Luke Lea: "The best wall would be a biometric Social Security card that you have to produce to buy groceries, fill up your car with gas, use a credit card, open a bank account, etc.."

    All hail the eternal State!

    Seriously, I sometimes read here and think I've accidentally stumbled into the National Review.

    "Walls don't work." That's why Israel has so many.
    "It's too expensive." That's why Hungary has one.
    "Gunpowder made walls obsolete." That's why Israel's and Hungary's "walls" are double layers of chain link fence and razor wire.
    "We need a national ID card." Yeah, because the authorities need help in achieving their cashless, constantly monitored economy.

    Add in the terribly serious midwits and IQ fetishists who love employing endless dialectic to counter anti-White posters' obvious rhetoric, and more and more frequently these threads epitomize America's degradation and downfall. You are not all nearly as clever and serious as you believe, and the eternal "on the one hand, on the other hand" and "interesting argument" equivocation demonstrates you have no genuine "America first" sentiment, let alone a minimum of White racial consciousness. Sure, sure, you'll be eaten last. Good on ya, mates .

    Replies: @Opinionator

    , @Achmed E. Newman
    @Luke Lea

    Luke, were the US ever to become the kind of locked-up police state that you desire, I will be climbing that wall from the US side into Mexico with my 21 ft extension ladder, the wife and kids and all my shit.

    I hope that was just some kind of book review or something (1984, or the last book of the New Testament, maybe?)

    Once I got out, I'd guess I would owe Fred Reed a big apology - it would hurt me to do that, but as long as he has an extra room at his hacienda ....

    , @SteveRogers42
    @Luke Lea

    Yeah! More centralized control and round-the-clock surveillance! That's the ticket!

  35. @TG
    With respect, you have completely missed the point of a wall.

    A wall would have a psychological impact, sure, and possibly that would be important, but it would have almost nothing to do with border security.

    Why does the sociopathic CEO of facebook have no problem with trespassers invading his privacy on his massive estates? It's not the wall. It's the knowledge that if someone does sneak onto his property, they will be there illegally, and sooner or later they will be found and arrested and likely fined and jailed. So people mostly don't try.

    Until about 1970 the United States had no wall on it's southern border with Mexico, and virtually no illegal immigration. Because the law was enforced. Sure, a few snuck in, but they lived in fear, it was difficult and unpleasant. And that discouraged others.

    The notion that if we build a wall, then illegals already here can breath easy, is simply false. If illegals already here are rewarded for breaking the law, far more will follow, wall or no. Remember: even today, most illegals enter illegally. What's the point of a wall, if people know they can enter as tourists and just stay as long as they like and get benefits and medical care etc. without fear of being deported? Answer: no point at all.

    It is not necessary that the current illegal population be deported. it is necessary that they suffer for their crimes, to discourage others.

    And if you think this is harsh, join with me in cursing people like Milton Friedman and Julian Simon and Paul Krugman, whose corrupt preaching that nirvana can only be achieved if people breed like rodents, is responsible for this conflict in the first place. May they and their descendants be stripped of all wealth and sent to Bangladesh where they will be forced to live out their lives in misery working for 50 cents an hour. Because people are the ultimate resource. If you consider people to be a resource, that is, like cattle.

    Replies: @Intelligent Dasein, @IHTG, @415 reasons

    Zuckerberg’s house in San Francisco does actually have a pretty substantial fence.

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    @415 reasons


    Zuckerberg’s house in San Francisco does actually have a pretty substantial fence.
     
    As Sarah Hoyt likes to say over at Insty's place: "This is my shocked face".
  36. @International Jew
    Of course I'm all for a wall, but unfortunately, a wall is also an admission of partial defeat. It means we lack the will for effective interior enforcement.

    Israel didn't bother to build a wall during the 1950s and 1960s. Arab raiders were deterred by the threat of retaliation on their villages. Not just that, but the threat extended to the Kingdom of Jordan (whose territory then included the West Bank) itself. To this day, on the West Bank, you can see Jordanian trench works and defense positions placed on east-facing slopes — ie not toward Israel but away from it — designed to intercept terrorists on their way to Israel.

    Replies: @Dave Pinsen, @AnotherDad, @Buzz Mohawk

    Israel wasn’t facing economic migrants from Sub-Saharan Africa in the ’50s and ’60s.

    • Replies: @BB753
    @Dave Pinsen

    Neither was Europe.

  37. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @wren
    OT:

    Steve's most important graph is in the comments.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/07/japan-mystery-low-birth-rate/534291/

    The best comment though is:

    Another major problem with Japanese fertility is their pixelated genitals. Not many people know this, but 20% of all Japanese newborns undergo data corruption in the birth canal.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    Its one of the downside of their economic system and arguably, of a high trust society. The workers are screwed pretty hard. Foreign capital can’t enter and men expect declining real wages.

    All bad things.

    Many WN admire Japan, conveniently ignoring that the same attitude has severe consequences. Perhaps they’ll maintain as a people – or perhaps, this overall hopelessness will end up breaking up. Its not that they are poor(of course not), but the sense of relative poverty to China or the USA attracts many converts to progressive causes.

    If the US opens the borders and its people have more hope, why shouldn’t Japan?, they ask. Why do we need to suffer such low wages?

    • Replies: @AM
    @Anonymous


    Many WN admire Japan, conveniently ignoring that the same attitude has severe consequences
     
    So is not having a country in 100 years.

    We can pay now or pay double/triple/quadrupile in 4 decades from now.

    I don't want cheap stuff from China and cheap construction help. I want my great-children to have a home.

    If the US opens the borders and its people have more hope, why shouldn’t Japan?
     
    Because this concept is so stupid even for the US that it's hard to where to go next with it. Life is bust and booms. Learning to roll with being poor for a while is part of it.

    Besides, it's not like the US voted on open borders. It got forced up us by the elite classes, just like "gay marriage". Open borders are about making life easy and richer for the elites, nothing more. The masses don't get "hope" from watching themselves being invaded by illegal peoples for decades.

    Replies: @Anon

  38. @Anonym
    @Pat Boyle

    Yes, this is a good point. Wall building (and using your navy) will become the international consensus in the face of massive African immigration.

    I think that Trump will find a way to build a wall, even a "big, beautiful wall" given how much many times he has been featured on camera in front of thousands of people saying he's going to build one. As for Mexico paying for it, no one really cares. If he doesn't, it's an albatross around his neck and a record of failure for eternity. For a guy who brags about getting the government to build an ice rink properly in New York, this is not something he can avoid, even if its the Seabees or equivalent who get it done.

    Replies: @Romanian

    I love your Seabees. I wish my government would get them to build the fucking highway connectors through the mountain passes, thereby better connecting the historic regions of Romania. The usual sabotage from abroad, indolence and corruption from within would not work with a yank crew on the ground and on contract.

  39. @Guy de Champlagne
    This is the fallacy people on the right constantly fall into: thinking that anything that pisses off liberals and the cultural elite must be a great idea. The wall is a useful gauge of Trump's broader intentions towards immigration at any given moment. But actually fixing the immigration issue would involve teaming up with economic liberals to use government regulation to punish those that employ, house, and bank with illegal immigrants. These are economic migrants and the only way to fix the problem is through economic regulation.

    I'm not against the wall but, even if we somehow win the continual fight to keep it manned and maintained properly, it's just going to create a wack a mole dynamic where people just start coming into the country in other ways. Supposedly half of illegal immigrants are already visa overstays.

    Replies: @englishmike, @Jus' Sayin'..., @Nico, @Neoconned, @AB-, @Lagertha, @Lagertha, @Lagertha, @Lagertha, @Lagertha, @AnotherDad, @Dave Pinsen

    That, and building a wall as a symbol while perpetualizing DACA is simply an empty symbol and an especially pernicious smokescreen.

  40. I’d take Mexicans over Haitians at a ‘several to one’ ratio.

    Haiti is a ‘micro Africa’.

    http://www.legalreader.com/canada-influx-haitian-refugees-from-the-united-states-unsustainable/

    Haitians believe in Trump more than iSteve commenters.

  41. @Jus' Sayin'...
    @Guy de Champlagne


    "...teaming up with economic liberals to use government regulation to punish those that employ, house, and bank with illegal immigrants...."
     
    Unfortunately, those same progs ("economic liberals") will then argue that we must supply these now unemployed people with welfare benefits, food stamps, Medicaid, and any other welfare program the progs can think of. Those same progs will also expect us to educate these newly unemployed illegals' children and pay through the nose for the crime that many will eventually commit. There is no way the progs plan on encouraging these people to obey our laws and leave our country. Only a self-deluding fool would imagine otherwise.

    Only the purposefully deluded can any longer imagine that "negotiating" with progs is even a break-even strategy. A prog's idea of compromise is continuing to ratchet policy in the direction he wants but at a slightly slower rate than he would like.

    The stoopid party establishment plays dumb and deliberately conspires with progs in this ratcheting process. I'd hoped for better from Trump.

    Replies: @Guy de Champlagne, @SteveRogers42

    There are a lot of democrats who don’t like immigration, even when it’s presented as about the immigrants themselves, and you could substantially increase that number by talking instead about the businesses and wealthy individuals that profit off of and exploit immigrants, and cast them as the villain instead. If republicans tend to lose in these negotiations that certainly in part because they’re stupider, but it’s also because they don’t actually want to reduce immigration. Republicans want immigration because the party is controlled and financed by the economically conservative (pro big business and pro wealthy) factions.

    Even if teaming with liberals is impossible, which I reject, that doesn’t change the fact that the way to solve the problem is through business regulation not through a wall.

    • Replies: @bomag
    @Guy de Champlagne


    the way to solve the problem is through business regulation not through a wall
     
    Walls do work, both as a barrier and as a symbol.

    Business regulation is an excellent move, but it doesn't solve the problem alone. There is enough unregulated activity to keep the problem festering, and for that matter a lot move here not caring whether they ever work or not; they live off relatives, the community, and the charity network.

    it’s just going to create a wack a mole dynamic
     
    Life is a game of whack-a-mole. Do farmers quit controlling weeds just because they grow back? We need to have multiple strategies on the table; implementing them one at a time. The Wall right now has the most political support; let's show that we can get that going and that it has some effect, then move on to the next item.
  42. @englishmike
    @Guy de Champlagne


    I’m not against the wall but, even if we somehow win the continual fight to keep it manned and maintained properly, it’s just going to create a wack a mole dynamic where people just start coming into the country in other ways. Supposedly half of illegal immigrants are already visa overstays..
     
    Is that a reason for not doing something about the other half?

    Replies: @Guy de Champlagne

    It is if that other half will just change their tactics to get around the wall or if the wall won’t be manned and maintained. I think of it like drugs, where the economic incentive to import drugs has just resulted in people coming up with ever more inventive systems to bypass whatever obstacle has been put in their way.

  43. In a later edit, Steve added to the original post an annotation that is worth highlighting:

    Essentially, the fight over the Wall is about whether Americans have a right to build a Wall.

  44. @Sajmon
    Equal Justice Initiative published a third edition of "Lynching in America: Confronting the Legacy of Racial Terror":

    "It is dubious to claim that all or even most individuals lynched for violent offenses had committed them, considering that whites’ accusations of rape or murder were rarely subject to serious scrutiny when lodged against black people."

    https://lynchinginamerica.eji.org/report-landing

    Replies: @El Dato

    https://lynchinginamerica.eji.org/report/

    6. We found that most terror lynchings can best be understood as having the features of one or more of the following: (1) lynchings that resulted from a wildly distorted fear of interracial sex; (2) lynchings in response to casual social transgressions; (3) lynchings based on allegations of serious violent crime; (4) public spectacle lynchings; (5) lynchings that escalated into large-scale violence targeting the entire African American community; and (6) lynchings of sharecroppers, ministers, and community leaders who resisted mistreatment, which were most common between 1915 and 1940.

    Well, anyone who has ever survived schoolyard activities as the underdog knows exactly how this social dynamic works. Relax the rule of law and bad stuff is going down.

  45. @Achilles
    From Steve's favorite newspaper:

    At that point, according to two people familiar with the exchange, one of whom was in the room, Mr. Trump called on his chief of staff, John F. Kelly, the former Homeland Security secretary who has long warned against instability on the southern border.

    Mr. Kelly launched into a passionate call for stouter border defenses, including his general support for a beefed-up barrier, offering a remarkably pessimistic view of Mexico’s security situation and political stability.

    He likened Mexico, one of the United States’ most important trading and law enforcement partners, to Venezuela under the regime of Hugo Chávez, the former leader, suggesting it was on the verge of a collapse that would have repercussions in the United States, according to two people who attended the meeting.
     
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/14/us/trump-schumer-pelosi-daca.html

    Replies: @El Dato

    That was indeed the theme of 2014.

    Is Mexico a Failed State? Looks like it

    I doubt it has gotten much better since.

  46. @Guy de Champlagne
    This is the fallacy people on the right constantly fall into: thinking that anything that pisses off liberals and the cultural elite must be a great idea. The wall is a useful gauge of Trump's broader intentions towards immigration at any given moment. But actually fixing the immigration issue would involve teaming up with economic liberals to use government regulation to punish those that employ, house, and bank with illegal immigrants. These are economic migrants and the only way to fix the problem is through economic regulation.

    I'm not against the wall but, even if we somehow win the continual fight to keep it manned and maintained properly, it's just going to create a wack a mole dynamic where people just start coming into the country in other ways. Supposedly half of illegal immigrants are already visa overstays.

    Replies: @englishmike, @Jus' Sayin'..., @Nico, @Neoconned, @AB-, @Lagertha, @Lagertha, @Lagertha, @Lagertha, @Lagertha, @AnotherDad, @Dave Pinsen

    A lotta ppl here are postulating everybody from Kamala Harris to thay Ellison dude from Minnesota as our next Democrat presidential candidate.

    Im convinced now given her book and media appearances giving a multitude of excuses Madam Chairman isnt done w her run for the presidency.

    Trump is older than Clinton and yet we assume she wont run again? If Trump can why can’t she?

    • Replies: @AnotherDad
    @Neoconned


    Trump is older than Clinton and yet we assume she wont run again? If Trump can why can’t she?
     
    Very much doubt it. But who cares. She won't be her party's nominee.

    When you lose an election your party believes you should have won, it pretty much ends your career. I have no idea who the Democrats will nominate, could be almost anyone at this point, but it won't be Hillary.

    Replies: @Jack D, @athEIst

    , @Art Deco
    @Neoconned

    Trump is older than Clinton and yet we assume she wont run again? If Trump can why can’t she?

    Trump is healthy. Hilligula? There's an anaesthesiologist who has produced and posted a Youtube calling attention to various tics and public incidents. He's careful to say he's not a specialist in neurology and he is not her doctor. It's his personal belief that she shows signs of Parkinson's and that it's a passable inference that it was first diagnosed in 2005.

    I'm recalling that Richard Gephardt was in 1988 appalled at the amount of personal information the media demanded of him and tried to organize a cartel with the other candidates to refuse to answer many inquiries. I don't think he succeeded. It was interesting 16 years later how John Kerry trusted the Boston Globe sufficiently to examine his Navy personnel file when no one else was permitted to see it. John McCain in 2008 had to have long Q & A sessions with reporters with documentation present while BO got by with a vague one-page memo from his doctor. The media didn't used to be extensions of the Democratic Party.

    And of course there was her month-long disappearance in 2012 after her William Holdenesque accident at home. (From which Bilge admitted it took her months to recover).

    Replies: @Neoconned

    , @Art Deco
    @Neoconned

    and yet we assume she wont run again? If Trump can why can’t she?

    Also third-time's-a-charm is unusual in Presidential politics. Bob Dole managed it, but he only ran two vigorous and competitive campaigns; he was notably more prominent as a national politician after 1984 than he was at the time of his first run. Jerry Brown managed it; again, he ran only two vigorous campaigns; his 2d campaign failed immediately. Ronald Reagan managed it, but his first candidacy in 1968 incorporated almost no campaigning. He announced, was a rallying point for uncommitted delegates during the floor vote the following day, and then it was over. Hubert Humphrey managed it, but two of his campaigns were run under the pre-1970 delegate selection rules - a different world. (Humphrey won the nomination in 1968 while not entering a single primary). George Wallace managed it; he was a protest candidate and his most successful run was a petition campaign undertaken outside the Democratic Party. Neither Humphrey nor Wallace actually won the nomination the last time they ran. (Nor did Jerry Brown, while we're at it).

    The post-1970 primary electorates will allow a candidate two shots at the prize, and sometimes just one (see Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee).

    Replies: @Neoconned

    , @SteveRogers42
    @Neoconned

    Please let it happen.

    Replies: @Neoconned

  47. So basically as I understand it people want the wall built not necessarily because it will keep lots of people out (as I’ve mentioned before, it won’t)

    but because:

    a/ It shows Americans are serious about their borders

    But if Americans were serious about their borders they would implement a serious E-verify system and have welfare only for provable citizens.

    b/ the people want it and the elites don’t.

    There’s probably a Simpson’s episode about such an idea.

    • Replies: @Opinionator
    @anony-mouse

    It also sends a message to would-be lawless infiltrators: "Do not enter."

    The message to the rest of the world during the Obama administration was, "Door's open, come right in!"

    But a wall would be effective as a physical barrier nonetheless, as walls have been in Israel, Hungary, and India/Bangladesh.

  48. @Guy de Champlagne
    This is the fallacy people on the right constantly fall into: thinking that anything that pisses off liberals and the cultural elite must be a great idea. The wall is a useful gauge of Trump's broader intentions towards immigration at any given moment. But actually fixing the immigration issue would involve teaming up with economic liberals to use government regulation to punish those that employ, house, and bank with illegal immigrants. These are economic migrants and the only way to fix the problem is through economic regulation.

    I'm not against the wall but, even if we somehow win the continual fight to keep it manned and maintained properly, it's just going to create a wack a mole dynamic where people just start coming into the country in other ways. Supposedly half of illegal immigrants are already visa overstays.

    Replies: @englishmike, @Jus' Sayin'..., @Nico, @Neoconned, @AB-, @Lagertha, @Lagertha, @Lagertha, @Lagertha, @Lagertha, @AnotherDad, @Dave Pinsen

    This is the fallacy people on the right constantly fall into: thinking that anything that pisses off liberals and the cultural elite must be a great idea.

    It’s even worse on the left; they have all the negros supporting unlimited immigration, even tho that effectivly eliminates any chance of their getting a toe hold in the economy. Same thing for the latinos.

    Then you have the brain dead asians voting against their interests, tho they seem to have wised up in the last coupld of months.

    Don’t even start with the white left, that’s the definition of brain dead…and worse.

    • Disagree: jesse helms think-alike
  49. @anony-mouse
    So basically as I understand it people want the wall built not necessarily because it will keep lots of people out (as I've mentioned before, it won't)

    but because:

    a/ It shows Americans are serious about their borders

    But if Americans were serious about their borders they would implement a serious E-verify system and have welfare only for provable citizens.

    b/ the people want it and the elites don't.

    There's probably a Simpson's episode about such an idea.

    Replies: @Opinionator

    It also sends a message to would-be lawless infiltrators: “Do not enter.”

    The message to the rest of the world during the Obama administration was, “Door’s open, come right in!”

    But a wall would be effective as a physical barrier nonetheless, as walls have been in Israel, Hungary, and India/Bangladesh.

  50. @Jack D

    If we build a wall, and let’s suppose it works pretty well, the possibility of massive illegal immigration ceases to be an ongoing threat and becomes more of a historical idiosyncrasy.
     
    You are supposing facts not in evidence. Even if the wall and its supporting systems was effective (a wall by itself does little - it still has to be monitored and patrolled, etc.) the US-Mexico border is not the only point of entry into the country. Any time you have massive differences in standards of living there is a lot of pressure from those on the low side of the equation. And there is a lot of $ to be made smuggling people in. Chinese immigrants pay up to $80,000 to get smuggled in.

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16422719

    (That was 10 years ago - I don't know how much it is now).


    If the wall is built that only make the pressure worse. So people look for other ways to get in. A lot of illegals are people who arrived here on a plane, with a visa, and then overstayed. Expect people to fly to Canada and try to sneak across the Northern border. Maybe people will come by boat. With false papers. Claiming refugee status. Thru tunnels under the wall. Etc.

    If the Wall was really effective it would end drug smuggling across the Mexican border. What are the chances that's really going to happen?

    Replies: @Rod1963, @AM, @Opinionator, @AnotherDad, @JSM, @DRA, @DRA, @SteveRogers42

    Nice spin. Just do nothing, roll over and die.

    The fact the progs are screaming like stuck pigs along with the chambers of commerce, says to me it’s effective. Progs never bitch about anything that is harmless to them.

    The wall to the Left means, even if they are in power, they will have to tear it down in places. They can’t do that without opening a can of worms.

    Walls work for Hungary, Israel and Saudi Arabia. That’s good enough for me.

    But someone says they won’t work on Mexicans. Not likely.

    Going to Canada you say? Excellent, that will filter out a lot of them.

    We can build a wall on the North side as well. It’s not hard, just copy the one Israelis have in the Sinai border. It may come to that anyway as Canada is going out of it’s way of coddling Muslim terrorists. Be a great jobs program as well for combat vets.

    • Agree: Opinionator
    • Replies: @Guy de Champlagne
    @Rod1963

    The wall to the Left means, even if they are in power, they will have to tear it down in places. They can’t do that without opening a can of worms.

    They can just let people crossing tear it down in places and cut holes in it, which is exactly what has happened with he existing border fence. It's a fantasy to think that Trump building a wall will permanently prevent illegal immigration in the future and force the hands of his successors.

    , @OilcanFloyd
    @Rod1963

    What is the Israel fetish some people have? America has the ability to build a wall, and previous generations had no problem defining and defending the nation.

    If anything, America's Jewish elites need to get their priorities straight and quit being traitors in constant opposition to traditional America and Americans.

    We don't need a wall. We need elites who aren't traitors. Our current elites would just view the building of the wall as a chance to feed at the public trough, and then bring in more immigrants by sea and air.

  51. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @BB753
    A wall is also a statement of national sovereignty. In our post-national, globalist world, it amounts to a declaration of war to the enemies of the nation state. I fear that the establishment will never allow a wall to be erected. Over their dead bodies.
    When Trump won, he thought being president was tantamount to being the CEO of a corporation, the real boss with executive powers. What he's found out is that the POTUS has virtually no power when virtually the entire civil service, legislators, senators, judges and top brass in the military decide that they're not going to obey his orders, as an outsider and iconoclast. With no support from Wall Street, the mainstream media, Harvard, Silicon Valley and most big corporations, there's no way he can get anything done.
    You either play by their rules or they kick you out of power, in a soft coup.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Boethiuss, @lavoisier, @ben tillman

    “With no support from Wall Street, the mainstream media, Harvard, Silicon Valley and most big corporations, there’s no way he can get anything done.”

    Which still makes him hell and gone better than Hillary would have been. I’ll take a semi-lame duck who sends a message to the world that the people aren’t drinking the koolaid, and slows (and in some cases reverses) a bit of the left agenda, than an establishment shill who floors the accelerator of the car driving straight off the cliff.

    • Replies: @BB753
    @Anonymous

    So, you're happy with your candidate being powerless as a president?
    What's Trump got to loose at this point? He's 71 and a billionaire. If it were up to me, I'd stage a subtle counter-coup. Drain the stamp, for God's sake, as promised. Start firing people. Impeach judges. Send that POS Pence on a world - wide diplomatic tour non-stop for a couple of years, as far as Washington as possible. Make him visit every freaking country on the planet, the shittier the better. Dig up the dirt on Ryan, Mitt Cuckney and McDonnell, and the justices too. Bend them to your will.
    Don't trust anybody who's not 100% loyal to you. Fire dissenters and backstabbers from your staff. Ostracize or destroy anybody who stands in your way, be it a government employee, a judge, a top-ranked official or a military officer. That's the way the Left has had its way for 8 decades. Its time for the Right to clean house or die trying. This is our last stand.

    Replies: @SteveRogers42, @EdwardM

  52. We don’t need a wall.
    We need 2 barbed wire fences 100 feet apart and the willingness to shoot anything that moves between them.

    The problem would end in a month.

    • Agree: BB753
    • Replies: @oddsbodkins
    @Bill Jones

    Yes. Or, in the less populated areas, patrols by helicopter gunship. This would save about 300 lives a year, which are now lost playing "Sonoran desert roulette".

    , @PiltdownMan
    @Bill Jones


    We don’t need a wall.
    We need 2 barbed wire fences 100 feet apart and the willingness to shoot anything that moves between them.
     
    That's how India does it on its Western border, which is fortified and lit up with klieg lights, and can be seen from space. Apparently, they are pretty quick to fire on the Eastern boder as well, going by an earlier comment in one of Steve's other posts.

    http://americanpatrol.com/12-FEATURES/121216-FEATURE/india-border-lights5.jpg

    https://sofrep.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/AFP_GM00H-3623.jpg
    , @AM
    @Bill Jones


    We need 2 barbed wire fences 100 feet apart and the willingness to shoot anything that moves between them.
     
    That's what we're actually getting, as far as I can tell. We might need a more picturesque wall, though, between a few sections.
    , @Jack D
    @Bill Jones

    The question is not one of technology but that of political will. You are right that a month of machine gunning border crossers would end the problem forever but we could not machine gun border crossers even for ONE DAY. The first little Mexican girl who is machine gunned in a photogenic way would become the greatest martyr of our times and the outcry would be heard on other planets.

    Speaking of political will, the E. Germans had an effective FENCE based system at the W. German border (not around Berlin but the much longer border w. W. Germany). In between the border FENCES there was a death zone with trip wires and anti-personnel mines, etc. Even the E. Germans had to remove the mines after 1984 in the face of international condemnation.

  53. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @YetAnotherAnon

    "The wall will come later," Trump tells reporters leaving White House
     
    Mañana!

    Someone should do a cartoon of a slumped and sleepy Trump under a large sombrero, being asked by Uncle Sam (or John Doe) when that wall's gonna be built.

    Replies: @Dot Not Feather, @Anonymous

    “Someone should do a cartoon of a slumped and sleepy Trump under a large sombrero, being asked by Uncle Sam (or John Doe) when that wall’s gonna be built.”

    Trump’s been pushing since Day 1 to keep good on his promises to the American people who elected him, and the judiciary, and both sides of the aisle in Congress have been thwarting it every way they can. In the face of all of this, he is increasingly forced to minimize and compromise on it to get anything done. He is after all, only 1 man. The checks and balances built into the system to protect us weren’t designed to deal with overwhelming treason throughout the government.

    What Trump’s inability to push forward an agenda for the wall, illegals, and Muslim immigration that as clear as a bell is in the best interest and safety of the American people and their descendants, really represents is how bad things have gotten in the US.

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    @Anonymous

    Nonetheless, his tweets about "do we really want to throw out useful people?" are 180 degrees removed from the policy that got him elected. It is far more important to be serious about enforcing immigration law, and be seen to be serious about it, than to worry over individuals who will always be the exception to the rule.

    Australia chucks out white Brits who are perfectly useful and productive citizens whenever they break immigration law, even inadvertantly. Not so long ago a couple of care home nurses (who got a visa to work in the remoter parts of Oz i.e. everywhere not a city) were slung out after it was found they'd moved about 100 yards inside a forbidden (to them) zone. The attitude is "you know the visa conditions, don't break them".

    , @Anonymous
    @Anonymous

    The government can be forced to bend to the will of the people, even this government. The push for Amnesty has failed three times over the last decade, despite a heavy push from both parties because the people have made their views known to their Congressmen, and it is incredibly unpopular. If whites would push their Congressmen on more of these issues and make more of a stink about things that displeased us, like our friends who wear the small hats do, we could move this country a lot further to the sane right.

  54. Essentially, the fight over the Wall is about whether Americans have a right to build a Wall.

    I see Opinionator also highlighted this. Yes, this is it.

    And that we’re even having the discussion is, in and of itself, a sign of the decay. It’s like arguing over who gets to go into which bathrooms. Yes, you can argue about it, but that you’re even having the discussion suggests that the other party is so far gone that the next discussion is going to be even more off the rails.

    If the thing gets built properly, I think we should take up a collection for a Trump Tower Wall Overlook so we can visit. We can add it as stop to the national park passport stamp thing that they have kids.

  55. @Jack D

    If we build a wall, and let’s suppose it works pretty well, the possibility of massive illegal immigration ceases to be an ongoing threat and becomes more of a historical idiosyncrasy.
     
    You are supposing facts not in evidence. Even if the wall and its supporting systems was effective (a wall by itself does little - it still has to be monitored and patrolled, etc.) the US-Mexico border is not the only point of entry into the country. Any time you have massive differences in standards of living there is a lot of pressure from those on the low side of the equation. And there is a lot of $ to be made smuggling people in. Chinese immigrants pay up to $80,000 to get smuggled in.

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16422719

    (That was 10 years ago - I don't know how much it is now).


    If the wall is built that only make the pressure worse. So people look for other ways to get in. A lot of illegals are people who arrived here on a plane, with a visa, and then overstayed. Expect people to fly to Canada and try to sneak across the Northern border. Maybe people will come by boat. With false papers. Claiming refugee status. Thru tunnels under the wall. Etc.

    If the Wall was really effective it would end drug smuggling across the Mexican border. What are the chances that's really going to happen?

    Replies: @Rod1963, @AM, @Opinionator, @AnotherDad, @JSM, @DRA, @DRA, @SteveRogers42

    If the Wall was really effective it would end drug smuggling across the Mexican border. What are the chances that’s really going to happen?

    If prisons were really effective, they would end all murder and theft. What is so hard about the concept of putting up a fence keeps almost everyone out that you don’t want? People do it in their neighborhoods all the time.

  56. @Anonymous
    I understand how "build the wall" was a good slogan for the campaign, to attach some bold new action to the candidate. But to push forward its actual construction, I think "finish the wall" is a lot better since it normalizes the wall, and makes it sound inevitable.

    Replies: @Daniel Williams

    I think “finish the wall” is a lot better since it normalizes the wall, and makes it sound inevitable.

    Maybe that’ll be his slogan in 2020.

  57. @Opinionator
    @Pat Boyle

    Gunpowder had made high walls obsolete.

    How so?

    Replies: @El Dato, @Pat Boyle, @Dr. X

    How so?

    Your armed forces can simply shoot people coming across your frontier.

  58. @El Dato
    @Opinionator

    That's easy: You could rip the wall down by blowing it up or throwing stuff against its flat, rather thin stonework with considerably more force than a balista could:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_engine#Modern_era

    Defense work quickly morphed into:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle#Bastions_and_star_forts_.2816th_century.29

    Modern "walls" will probably rapidly be light wirework patrolled by drones (flying or walking). Easier on animal migration, too. Hopefully the drones will not be "lethal force" dispensing, they might even ask you for ID in a professional manner.

    Replies: @Anonym, @SteveRogers42

    Modern “walls” will probably rapidly be light wirework patrolled by drones (flying or walking). Easier on animal migration, too. Hopefully the drones will not be “lethal force” dispensing, they might even ask you for ID in a professional manner.

    I like the idea of giving them 20 seconds to comply.

    • Replies: @the cruncher
    @Anonym

    Auto-sentries, but with bullets:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxBa5bQfTGc&t=111s

  59. @Guy de Champlagne
    This is the fallacy people on the right constantly fall into: thinking that anything that pisses off liberals and the cultural elite must be a great idea. The wall is a useful gauge of Trump's broader intentions towards immigration at any given moment. But actually fixing the immigration issue would involve teaming up with economic liberals to use government regulation to punish those that employ, house, and bank with illegal immigrants. These are economic migrants and the only way to fix the problem is through economic regulation.

    I'm not against the wall but, even if we somehow win the continual fight to keep it manned and maintained properly, it's just going to create a wack a mole dynamic where people just start coming into the country in other ways. Supposedly half of illegal immigrants are already visa overstays.

    Replies: @englishmike, @Jus' Sayin'..., @Nico, @Neoconned, @AB-, @Lagertha, @Lagertha, @Lagertha, @Lagertha, @Lagertha, @AnotherDad, @Dave Pinsen

    sheesh….you are all so annoying, you men who should know how to fight. A wall, which we have in Finland (going all around the kilometers from Kotka to Inontekio (Lapland) …is achievable….even with the words of the Sami.)

    • Replies: @Lagertha
    @Lagertha

    Finland has a 1.5 kilometer wide wall, BTW!!!!! fence first; guarded with guns; next: long 100 yard or so sand pit/sand lot (footprints and "matter" is a dead give away); trees and shrubs (Soviets had no money on their side) and then: Soviet (now Russian) old metal 12 foot high fence. Kid you knot: 12 feet for both Finns and Russians btw, on both sides. If you climbed that, either side, you were shot dead...maybe, even today. There are only a few roadways on the 1,300 mile fence.

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk, @OilcanFloyd, @Joe Stalin, @SteveRogers42

  60. @Guy de Champlagne
    This is the fallacy people on the right constantly fall into: thinking that anything that pisses off liberals and the cultural elite must be a great idea. The wall is a useful gauge of Trump's broader intentions towards immigration at any given moment. But actually fixing the immigration issue would involve teaming up with economic liberals to use government regulation to punish those that employ, house, and bank with illegal immigrants. These are economic migrants and the only way to fix the problem is through economic regulation.

    I'm not against the wall but, even if we somehow win the continual fight to keep it manned and maintained properly, it's just going to create a wack a mole dynamic where people just start coming into the country in other ways. Supposedly half of illegal immigrants are already visa overstays.

    Replies: @englishmike, @Jus' Sayin'..., @Nico, @Neoconned, @AB-, @Lagertha, @Lagertha, @Lagertha, @Lagertha, @Lagertha, @AnotherDad, @Dave Pinsen

    unlike you, I believe a wall now; a wall forever is victory. USA can not solve other countries’ corruption, and corruption, corruption, corruption, corruption, corruption and more corruption. Most countries can not create anything.

  61. @Anonymous
    @wren

    Its one of the downside of their economic system and arguably, of a high trust society. The workers are screwed pretty hard. Foreign capital can't enter and men expect declining real wages.

    All bad things.

    Many WN admire Japan, conveniently ignoring that the same attitude has severe consequences. Perhaps they'll maintain as a people - or perhaps, this overall hopelessness will end up breaking up. Its not that they are poor(of course not), but the sense of relative poverty to China or the USA attracts many converts to progressive causes.

    If the US opens the borders and its people have more hope, why shouldn't Japan?, they ask. Why do we need to suffer such low wages?

    Replies: @AM

    Many WN admire Japan, conveniently ignoring that the same attitude has severe consequences

    So is not having a country in 100 years.

    We can pay now or pay double/triple/quadrupile in 4 decades from now.

    I don’t want cheap stuff from China and cheap construction help. I want my great-children to have a home.

    If the US opens the borders and its people have more hope, why shouldn’t Japan?

    Because this concept is so stupid even for the US that it’s hard to where to go next with it. Life is bust and booms. Learning to roll with being poor for a while is part of it.

    Besides, it’s not like the US voted on open borders. It got forced up us by the elite classes, just like “gay marriage”. Open borders are about making life easy and richer for the elites, nothing more. The masses don’t get “hope” from watching themselves being invaded by illegal peoples for decades.

    • Replies: @Anon
    @AM

    You are exactly right, and the sad thing is that we had to pass the point of no return before enough Americans woke up and took notice.

    Of course, it's only a point of no return if we find it impossible to actually reverse the flow. I'm betting we will. The MSM have long since indoctrinated the masses, and the political system has worked effectively enough to prevent anyone who might actually act to protect the historical American nation from gaining a foothold. Until this black swan called Trump.

    Meanwhile the demographics involved continue to swamp the nation.

  62. @Guy de Champlagne
    This is the fallacy people on the right constantly fall into: thinking that anything that pisses off liberals and the cultural elite must be a great idea. The wall is a useful gauge of Trump's broader intentions towards immigration at any given moment. But actually fixing the immigration issue would involve teaming up with economic liberals to use government regulation to punish those that employ, house, and bank with illegal immigrants. These are economic migrants and the only way to fix the problem is through economic regulation.

    I'm not against the wall but, even if we somehow win the continual fight to keep it manned and maintained properly, it's just going to create a wack a mole dynamic where people just start coming into the country in other ways. Supposedly half of illegal immigrants are already visa overstays.

    Replies: @englishmike, @Jus' Sayin'..., @Nico, @Neoconned, @AB-, @Lagertha, @Lagertha, @Lagertha, @Lagertha, @Lagertha, @AnotherDad, @Dave Pinsen

    you are such an idealist until it hits you personally…boring, btw; by the time you realize that.

  63. @Guy de Champlagne
    This is the fallacy people on the right constantly fall into: thinking that anything that pisses off liberals and the cultural elite must be a great idea. The wall is a useful gauge of Trump's broader intentions towards immigration at any given moment. But actually fixing the immigration issue would involve teaming up with economic liberals to use government regulation to punish those that employ, house, and bank with illegal immigrants. These are economic migrants and the only way to fix the problem is through economic regulation.

    I'm not against the wall but, even if we somehow win the continual fight to keep it manned and maintained properly, it's just going to create a wack a mole dynamic where people just start coming into the country in other ways. Supposedly half of illegal immigrants are already visa overstays.

    Replies: @englishmike, @Jus' Sayin'..., @Nico, @Neoconned, @AB-, @Lagertha, @Lagertha, @Lagertha, @Lagertha, @Lagertha, @AnotherDad, @Dave Pinsen

    I’m totally for the Wall. Duh. Mexico must stop desperate people coming to the wall and paying $$$$$ to get them across (they will never make-up the pay) the “Wall.” Also, Mexico must stop exporting their poor…because…that’s not Christian. Also, Mexico sucks...and, the USA CAN NOT SOLVE their suckitude.

  64. @Guy de Champlagne
    This is the fallacy people on the right constantly fall into: thinking that anything that pisses off liberals and the cultural elite must be a great idea. The wall is a useful gauge of Trump's broader intentions towards immigration at any given moment. But actually fixing the immigration issue would involve teaming up with economic liberals to use government regulation to punish those that employ, house, and bank with illegal immigrants. These are economic migrants and the only way to fix the problem is through economic regulation.

    I'm not against the wall but, even if we somehow win the continual fight to keep it manned and maintained properly, it's just going to create a wack a mole dynamic where people just start coming into the country in other ways. Supposedly half of illegal immigrants are already visa overstays.

    Replies: @englishmike, @Jus' Sayin'..., @Nico, @Neoconned, @AB-, @Lagertha, @Lagertha, @Lagertha, @Lagertha, @Lagertha, @AnotherDad, @Dave Pinsen

    I’m totally for the Wall. Duh. Mexico must stop desperate people coming to the wall and paying $$$$$ to get them across (they will never make-up the pay) the “Wall.” Also, Mexico must stop exporting their poor…because…that’s not Christian. Also, Mexico sucks...and, the USA can not solve their suckitude.

  65. @Lagertha
    @Guy de Champlagne

    sheesh....you are all so annoying, you men who should know how to fight. A wall, which we have in Finland (going all around the kilometers from Kotka to Inontekio (Lapland) ...is achievable....even with the words of the Sami.)

    Replies: @Lagertha

    Finland has a 1.5 kilometer wide wall, BTW!!!!! fence first; guarded with guns; next: long 100 yard or so sand pit/sand lot (footprints and “matter” is a dead give away); trees and shrubs (Soviets had no money on their side) and then: Soviet (now Russian) old metal 12 foot high fence. Kid you knot: 12 feet for both Finns and Russians btw, on both sides. If you climbed that, either side, you were shot dead…maybe, even today. There are only a few roadways on the 1,300 mile fence.

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    @Lagertha

    Finland does a lot of things right. It is known for the academic performance of its students, for example.

    (It's where Kimi Raikkonen comes from, too.)

    But you know, these things are achievable when your population is homogenous. Even more doable when that population is modestly sized.

    America could build the best damn border structures ever seen, if only its citizens could agree to do so -- and if their government would ever listen to them. Not enough Americans realize that an immigration invasion is just as deadly as a Soviet invasion, in a slow, boiling frog sort of way.

    Would Finland have built up such a great border if Russians had come in offering to work cheap for the people who control the government, and to vote for them too?

    Replies: @Lagertha

    , @OilcanFloyd
    @Lagertha

    Lagertha, I wouldn't brag about your wall, since Finnish politicians have been busy selling you out, also. Parts of Helsinki look like Somalia, and Russians are all over eastern Finland legally.

    I know that Finland isn't in the same position as the U.S., or even Sweden, but I know Finns who would support a change in the situation. Many Finns are completely naive or crazy when it comes to the issues of race and immigration, and your elites support that situation, for the most part.

    Replies: @Lagertha

    , @Joe Stalin
    @Lagertha

    The US Border Patrol also uses this method:

    Glenn Spencer -- American Border Patrol -- June 13, 2016
    Americans Unaware
    The American people know that our government has failed to secure the border, but do they know that the mainstream media refuse to tell them why?
    No.
    Let me give you just one example of the silliness of the US Border Patrol.
    I drive along the border near my ranch three time a day. This morning I spotted a US Border Patrol vehicle dragging tires. This was not unusual --- they do it all the time.
    I thought you might like to be told why they do this.
    They drag the tires along the border to make a smooth path that will make it easier for them to spot the footprints of border crossers. It may be many hours before they drive along the path to look for footprints. If they see footprints (which is unlikely since many border crossers wear carpet over their shoes,) they then might decide to try to find the border crossers --- but probably not.
    Six years ago ABP began testing a system that detects border crossers instantly. It has been greatly improved and works every time.
    We can secure the border, but our government and the mainstream media (including Fox News) don't want this done.
    We will continue to be exposed to the type of attack seen in Orlando so long as we are kept unaware of solutions.

    http://americanborderpatrol.com/16-FEATURES/160613/160613-Feature.html

    , @SteveRogers42
    @Lagertha

    Hakkaa palle!

  66. Essentially, the fight over the Wall is about whether Americans have a right to build a Wall.

    It’s true. When you get right down to it, that’s all it is.

    Is there some kind of international zoning law that says citizens of a nation are not allowed to put walls along the sides of their property?

    Zuckerberg is a popular topic here. He put a big stone wall along his massive Hawaiian estate, blocking the ocean view of neighbors whose families had lived there for generations, but hey, he’s an elite and a future emperor, um, president, so he gets to be a who. His neighbors are the whom.

    What if we didn’t want to build a wall, but instead planned to put up statues of Mexican heroes along our southern border. No complaints then. The only reason this topic is hot is because walls tell the world this is your territory, and because it’s Americans who want to build a wall.

    It seems pointless now to even type more about this, because it’s so damn obvious.

  67. @Bill Jones
    We don't need a wall.
    We need 2 barbed wire fences 100 feet apart and the willingness to shoot anything that moves between them.

    The problem would end in a month.

    Replies: @oddsbodkins, @PiltdownMan, @AM, @Jack D

    Yes. Or, in the less populated areas, patrols by helicopter gunship. This would save about 300 lives a year, which are now lost playing “Sonoran desert roulette”.

  68. I’ve always said the wall has a powerful symbolic component. It says: “This is our border. Regardless of how we acquired this living space, it’s ours now, no matter how hard you try and colonize the place.”

    This is why the most common argument I hear against building a wall are not that we can’t afford it, or that it’s impractical, or that it will be too easily breeched — all defensible positions. Rather, it’s usually just “It will never happen!” or some variation of “THAT’S RACIST!” or “Statue of Liberty” blah, blah, blah.

    This opposition to affirming our southern border jibes precisely with the concept of “sanctuary cities.” We don’t like certain laws, so we’ll just ignore them. We don’t believe in borders — unless it’s our gated community or Malibu, CA — so we’re against anything which affirms their existence.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Patrick in SC

    And it's not just sanctuary cities. I even saw in a library recently a stack of pamphlets near the front door in Spanish encouraging people not to speak to ICE, not to let them into their homes, etc. And many larger, left-leaning organizations are telling their employees not to comply with the requests of ICE officers.

    Institutional level defiance of the law by government agencies and large institutions.

  69. Foreign invaders/immigrants, in a strange collusion with leftists in the US, are approaching the destruction of US culture sort of backwards from what the cultural Marxist model has typically been. With cult marx, the basic model has been to start with the micro and work out: You destroy the marriage, which destroys the family, which destroys the community, which collectively destroys the culture. Not necessarily always starting with marriage, of course, but you get the idea – you weaken the family through mass media bombardment or indoctrination. Or maybe with mental programming starting in elementary school.

    With illegal immigration, the approach is the opposite. They first violate national borders. Most people feel no direct effect, so the left moves on to violating community borders. But many can move to better neighborhoods within that community, so the left eventually will start violating familial borders – homes. “You have no right to place your family’s welfare above that of the collective. To allow only family members in your home is prejudiced. That’s nepotism [soon to be considered as dirty as racism.] And it’s bigoted.”

    As I’ve said before, if people cared as much about the borders of their nation as they do the borders of their front yard, we wouldn’t have an illegal immigration problem. Well…the front yard violation is coming.

  70. @Neoconned
    @Guy de Champlagne

    A lotta ppl here are postulating everybody from Kamala Harris to thay Ellison dude from Minnesota as our next Democrat presidential candidate.

    Im convinced now given her book and media appearances giving a multitude of excuses Madam Chairman isnt done w her run for the presidency.

    Trump is older than Clinton and yet we assume she wont run again? If Trump can why can't she?

    Replies: @AnotherDad, @Art Deco, @Art Deco, @SteveRogers42

    Trump is older than Clinton and yet we assume she wont run again? If Trump can why can’t she?

    Very much doubt it. But who cares. She won’t be her party’s nominee.

    When you lose an election your party believes you should have won, it pretty much ends your career. I have no idea who the Democrats will nominate, could be almost anyone at this point, but it won’t be Hillary.

    • Agree: Jim Don Bob
    • Replies: @Jack D
    @AnotherDad

    Hillary has clearly conceded in her interviews that she won't run for President again. It is out of character for Hillary to concede anything - you can see by her book that she sticks to her guns, even after the barrels have blown out. The reason she did this is because she knows that it is ice in winter - the Party is never going to put her at the top of the ballot again no matter how much she may wish it. So this makes it look as if it is her choice.

    , @athEIst
    @AnotherDad

    Of course she won't be the nominee. She knows this now, but in a year or two if Trump looks weak she'll start to think that since she won the popular vote and if a few more deplorables don't vote in Michigan and Wisconsin and Florida she could win. She will be delusional of course and that will be fun to watch. I guarantee it will happen.

  71. @Lagertha
    @Lagertha

    Finland has a 1.5 kilometer wide wall, BTW!!!!! fence first; guarded with guns; next: long 100 yard or so sand pit/sand lot (footprints and "matter" is a dead give away); trees and shrubs (Soviets had no money on their side) and then: Soviet (now Russian) old metal 12 foot high fence. Kid you knot: 12 feet for both Finns and Russians btw, on both sides. If you climbed that, either side, you were shot dead...maybe, even today. There are only a few roadways on the 1,300 mile fence.

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk, @OilcanFloyd, @Joe Stalin, @SteveRogers42

    Finland does a lot of things right. It is known for the academic performance of its students, for example.

    (It’s where Kimi Raikkonen comes from, too.)

    But you know, these things are achievable when your population is homogenous. Even more doable when that population is modestly sized.

    America could build the best damn border structures ever seen, if only its citizens could agree to do so — and if their government would ever listen to them. Not enough Americans realize that an immigration invasion is just as deadly as a Soviet invasion, in a slow, boiling frog sort of way.

    Would Finland have built up such a great border if Russians had come in offering to work cheap for the people who control the government, and to vote for them too?

    • Replies: @Lagertha
    @Buzz Mohawk

    Buzz, as you know, I live here, in NE, as do you? No, the system of fences was essential right after the war, because, you are correct: lots of Russians wanted to come to live in Finland (quality of life)...but, Finns did not/do not trust outsiders/others - this is deeply ingrained. And, bc Finland has an army, navy & air force, the "fence" is continually guarded by soldiers - I went there for fun with an American HS boyfriend....and weirdly, we got a tour from some young, bored soldiers in the 70's! The sand strip is actually (the sand pit/50 yard wide sand area) excavated 15-20 meters deep (so no one can dig) and filled with sand.

    You are also correct that I can not convince fellow Americans about the dangers of Immivasion. I have lost friends who think I am unduly paranoid. However, I have enough (and growing) friends who see the danger of unfettered immigration.

    As far as homogeneity, I think the over all, bad weather (8 months of bone chilling cold) of Finland keeps immigrants/migrants away. Plus, culturally, Finns are too unpredictable and aloof for people to feel comfortable there. They are also bigger, taller and broader than most people. Many MENA people have "self-deported,"...I just want all those men gone - I'm fine with families that are truly not parasites.

    As far as a fence/wall in Mexico; it just needs to be full-tech. It needs to be a giant beast of metal detectors, deflective AI, monitored with multiple sound and motion sensors, "eyes" everywhere. And, made of material that is so not nice to touch. Put robots to work! You could open up plants in Kentucky and West Virginia to just build "surveillance" robots and sensors for the walls/fences.....or any walls/fences any country wants, whenever! I liked the "fences" in Hunger Games. If Donald actually gives funding for plants in the Rust Belt and Appalachia to make robots and surveillance sensors/drones...he better remember me!!!

  72. We don’t need a wall. It would be simple to solve the illegal alien problem if the elites had the will. Everyone needs an ID showing their citizenship/residency status, and you can’t get a job, or go to school, or rent an apartment without showing it, and if you are not legal, customs gets called.

  73. @Rod1963
    @Jack D

    Nice spin. Just do nothing, roll over and die.

    The fact the progs are screaming like stuck pigs along with the chambers of commerce, says to me it's effective. Progs never bitch about anything that is harmless to them.

    The wall to the Left means, even if they are in power, they will have to tear it down in places. They can't do that without opening a can of worms.

    Walls work for Hungary, Israel and Saudi Arabia. That's good enough for me.

    But someone says they won't work on Mexicans. Not likely.

    Going to Canada you say? Excellent, that will filter out a lot of them.

    We can build a wall on the North side as well. It's not hard, just copy the one Israelis have in the Sinai border. It may come to that anyway as Canada is going out of it's way of coddling Muslim terrorists. Be a great jobs program as well for combat vets.

    Replies: @Guy de Champlagne, @OilcanFloyd

    The wall to the Left means, even if they are in power, they will have to tear it down in places. They can’t do that without opening a can of worms.

    They can just let people crossing tear it down in places and cut holes in it, which is exactly what has happened with he existing border fence. It’s a fantasy to think that Trump building a wall will permanently prevent illegal immigration in the future and force the hands of his successors.

  74. @International Jew
    Of course I'm all for a wall, but unfortunately, a wall is also an admission of partial defeat. It means we lack the will for effective interior enforcement.

    Israel didn't bother to build a wall during the 1950s and 1960s. Arab raiders were deterred by the threat of retaliation on their villages. Not just that, but the threat extended to the Kingdom of Jordan (whose territory then included the West Bank) itself. To this day, on the West Bank, you can see Jordanian trench works and defense positions placed on east-facing slopes — ie not toward Israel but away from it — designed to intercept terrorists on their way to Israel.

    Replies: @Dave Pinsen, @AnotherDad, @Buzz Mohawk

    Of course I’m all for a wall, but unfortunately, a wall is also an admission of partial defeat. It means we lack the will for effective interior enforcement.

    No it’s not. It’s an admission that a) you’ve got something worth protecting and b) you’ve got a problem–i.e. people outside who want to get in.

    Note, I do get your point. Our interior enforcement isn’t what it should be. You could say the clamor for the Wall is a reflection of that. I’m on board with you there. But survival with occasional and piece work labor inside the US is quite possible. Always has been. And prior to the computer age employment verification could be difficult other than just saying “you look like a Mexican”. So even if our interior enforcement was up to snuff, you’d still want a wall.

    Fundamentally if you have something to protect that other people want, having walls, fences, locks, guards, etc. etc., is all per spec. It’s a sign of seriousness. Lack of it is a sign of un-seriousness.

  75. @International Jew
    Of course I'm all for a wall, but unfortunately, a wall is also an admission of partial defeat. It means we lack the will for effective interior enforcement.

    Israel didn't bother to build a wall during the 1950s and 1960s. Arab raiders were deterred by the threat of retaliation on their villages. Not just that, but the threat extended to the Kingdom of Jordan (whose territory then included the West Bank) itself. To this day, on the West Bank, you can see Jordanian trench works and defense positions placed on east-facing slopes — ie not toward Israel but away from it — designed to intercept terrorists on their way to Israel.

    Replies: @Dave Pinsen, @AnotherDad, @Buzz Mohawk

    I’m all for raiding Mexican villages and threatening to attack Mexico City, if that’s what you mean.

    But I still want a wall, for the same reason I have doors on my house.

  76. @Guy de Champlagne
    This is the fallacy people on the right constantly fall into: thinking that anything that pisses off liberals and the cultural elite must be a great idea. The wall is a useful gauge of Trump's broader intentions towards immigration at any given moment. But actually fixing the immigration issue would involve teaming up with economic liberals to use government regulation to punish those that employ, house, and bank with illegal immigrants. These are economic migrants and the only way to fix the problem is through economic regulation.

    I'm not against the wall but, even if we somehow win the continual fight to keep it manned and maintained properly, it's just going to create a wack a mole dynamic where people just start coming into the country in other ways. Supposedly half of illegal immigrants are already visa overstays.

    Replies: @englishmike, @Jus' Sayin'..., @Nico, @Neoconned, @AB-, @Lagertha, @Lagertha, @Lagertha, @Lagertha, @Lagertha, @AnotherDad, @Dave Pinsen

    This is the fallacy people on the right constantly fall into: thinking that anything that pisses off liberals and the cultural elite must be a great idea.

    Actually what pisses off the left usually is a pretty great idea.

    And in the case of the Wall it obviously is.

    Not going to rehash in depth everything that I and others have said for the Wall–it’s obvious stuff. But the key points:
    — security is multi-layered; if you’re in a high crime neighborhood you don’t leave your door unlocked just because you also have a shotgun; yes we need mandatory E-verify and raids in the HomeDepot parking lot … but we also need to lock the front door
    — the Wall makes a statement of seriousness and national sovereignty that we now lack; it says that American is a nation, with a border and the right to defend it; it says Americans are a people with the right to keep others out of our territory–all reasons the left hates the Wall
    — with the Wall up and people unable to cross, you will dramatically stem the flow, because most people will simply stop trying to get in by border jumping;
    — you’ll actually get rid of a bunch of illegals now inside; they routinely go down to Mexico, because they are Mexicans and that’s where they really live and where their families are; they’ll go down eventually and find they can’t get back and get on with their lives in their own nation
    — the Wall is still there, still working still even after the next Democrat is elected; that’s not true of most interior enforcement measures

    The Wall isn’t all you need to do, but it’s one of the things you must do.

    • Agree: bomag
    • Replies: @International Jew
    @AnotherDad


    Actually what pisses off the left usually is a pretty great idea.
     
    Reliable rule of thumb, yes.
  77. Finland’s women are drifting away.

  78. @Bill Jones
    We don't need a wall.
    We need 2 barbed wire fences 100 feet apart and the willingness to shoot anything that moves between them.

    The problem would end in a month.

    Replies: @oddsbodkins, @PiltdownMan, @AM, @Jack D

    We don’t need a wall.
    We need 2 barbed wire fences 100 feet apart and the willingness to shoot anything that moves between them.

    That’s how India does it on its Western border, which is fortified and lit up with klieg lights, and can be seen from space. Apparently, they are pretty quick to fire on the Eastern boder as well, going by an earlier comment in one of Steve’s other posts.

  79. The issue of the wall, DACA, chain migration, demographics, etc, is whether or not politicians have to keep their campaign promises, or even follow or uphold the laws and work for the common good. I guess it’s being sorted out whether America is a real nation any longer, or if it’s just some combination of cash cow, play thing for elites, and sweat shop.

    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    @OilcanFloyd

    I used my agree option already, but heartily "Agree."

  80. @Jack D

    If we build a wall, and let’s suppose it works pretty well, the possibility of massive illegal immigration ceases to be an ongoing threat and becomes more of a historical idiosyncrasy.
     
    You are supposing facts not in evidence. Even if the wall and its supporting systems was effective (a wall by itself does little - it still has to be monitored and patrolled, etc.) the US-Mexico border is not the only point of entry into the country. Any time you have massive differences in standards of living there is a lot of pressure from those on the low side of the equation. And there is a lot of $ to be made smuggling people in. Chinese immigrants pay up to $80,000 to get smuggled in.

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16422719

    (That was 10 years ago - I don't know how much it is now).


    If the wall is built that only make the pressure worse. So people look for other ways to get in. A lot of illegals are people who arrived here on a plane, with a visa, and then overstayed. Expect people to fly to Canada and try to sneak across the Northern border. Maybe people will come by boat. With false papers. Claiming refugee status. Thru tunnels under the wall. Etc.

    If the Wall was really effective it would end drug smuggling across the Mexican border. What are the chances that's really going to happen?

    Replies: @Rod1963, @AM, @Opinionator, @AnotherDad, @JSM, @DRA, @DRA, @SteveRogers42

    Do you at least agree though that we have a right to build a Wall?

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Opinionator

    Sure, but the question is whether that would merely be a meaningless (though expensive) symbolic gesture or a turning point? In order for it to be a turning point you would have to (fighting the Federal courts and the Permanent Government every step of the way) end chain migration, send back the illegals who are already here (not just the worst criminals), close the door to all the other loopholes (bogus "refugee" claims, etc.) , end free education and other free government benefits for illegal aliens, etc., etc. You would have to turn the whole giant ocean liner of government in a different direction. Unfortunately, I see no sign that Trump has the support of his own party, let alone the rest of the government , that would be needed to effectuate such a U- turn (or even to take that 1st step).

    Replies: @AnotherDad

  81. @Anonymous
    кто кого?

    From Isabella of Spain By William Thomas Walsh (Sheed and Ward, 1935):

    Wherever they went, the Jews threw open to them the gates of the principal cities...

    “Without any love for the soil where they lived, without any of those affections that ennoble a people, and finally without sentiments of generosity,” says Amador de los Rios [Estudios sobre los Judíos de España] “they aspired only to feed their avarice and to accomplish the ruin of the Goths; taking the opportunity to manifest their rancour, and boasting of the hatreds that they had hoarded up so many centuries.”
     

    Replies: @Anon

    Why do I have the feeling that this book is not available in my local library?

    • Replies: @Bleuteaux
    @Anon

    My thought exactly. Honestly, how long until these kinds of books have been memory holed out of human history?

    , @res
    @Anon

    Probably not, but it is hard to judge library availability because there are so many different versions at Worldcat.

    Perhaps a good time to grab a copy of the PDF: http://www.liberius.net/livres/Isabella_of_Spain_000001061.pdf

  82. A wall is a necessary but not sufficient condition to secure our borders. It will do perhaps 40% of the work, at most – but that’s a hell of a lot of work. The 40% it keeps out will be the worst 40% – the dumbshits who couldn’t even manage to get a visa; the ones who commit the most publicized crimes, like the Kate Steinle murder.

    That’s one reason building a wall may be the last thing we want to do to secure our border, not the first. The other is that a wall will be such a solid, visible sign of enforcement that far too many voters will foolishly think – or be fooled into thinking – that a wall is all we need. When it doesn’t do 100% o the work one open borders advocate after another will say “See, we told you so.”

    So we should be willing to give up our insistence on a wall (for now) if there’s other significant laws we can pass instead.

    • Agree: Opinionator
    • Replies: @Anon
    @Wilkey

    Even if everything went perfectly according to you guys, and illegal immigration were cut in half or better,we're still being swamped with legal immigration, and even if all of it stopped tomorrow, demographic trends would ensure our destruction.

    And Africa and Asia are going to be sending a lot more people than Mexico ever did. Sorry if this sounds negative, but it's important to be realistic. The only way the nation will be saved is through large-scale violence, and we don't have the stomach for that, or even the political will.

    Replies: @bomag, @Anonymous

  83. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @AM
    @Anonymous


    Many WN admire Japan, conveniently ignoring that the same attitude has severe consequences
     
    So is not having a country in 100 years.

    We can pay now or pay double/triple/quadrupile in 4 decades from now.

    I don't want cheap stuff from China and cheap construction help. I want my great-children to have a home.

    If the US opens the borders and its people have more hope, why shouldn’t Japan?
     
    Because this concept is so stupid even for the US that it's hard to where to go next with it. Life is bust and booms. Learning to roll with being poor for a while is part of it.

    Besides, it's not like the US voted on open borders. It got forced up us by the elite classes, just like "gay marriage". Open borders are about making life easy and richer for the elites, nothing more. The masses don't get "hope" from watching themselves being invaded by illegal peoples for decades.

    Replies: @Anon

    You are exactly right, and the sad thing is that we had to pass the point of no return before enough Americans woke up and took notice.

    Of course, it’s only a point of no return if we find it impossible to actually reverse the flow. I’m betting we will. The MSM have long since indoctrinated the masses, and the political system has worked effectively enough to prevent anyone who might actually act to protect the historical American nation from gaining a foothold. Until this black swan called Trump.

    Meanwhile the demographics involved continue to swamp the nation.

  84. @Lagertha
    @Lagertha

    Finland has a 1.5 kilometer wide wall, BTW!!!!! fence first; guarded with guns; next: long 100 yard or so sand pit/sand lot (footprints and "matter" is a dead give away); trees and shrubs (Soviets had no money on their side) and then: Soviet (now Russian) old metal 12 foot high fence. Kid you knot: 12 feet for both Finns and Russians btw, on both sides. If you climbed that, either side, you were shot dead...maybe, even today. There are only a few roadways on the 1,300 mile fence.

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk, @OilcanFloyd, @Joe Stalin, @SteveRogers42

    Lagertha, I wouldn’t brag about your wall, since Finnish politicians have been busy selling you out, also. Parts of Helsinki look like Somalia, and Russians are all over eastern Finland legally.

    I know that Finland isn’t in the same position as the U.S., or even Sweden, but I know Finns who would support a change in the situation. Many Finns are completely naive or crazy when it comes to the issues of race and immigration, and your elites support that situation, for the most part.

    • Replies: @Lagertha
    @OilcanFloyd

    yes, I know all about the current migrant crisis (smaller, but people still pouring in) in Finland...and the Somali population in the cities (Kurds were the only ones that assimilated in the early 90's)...and the Russians. Right now, all the politicians are experiencing a backlash due to cuts in benefits (and tax increases for everyone) to the elderly, young and vulnerable. It is truly fascinating to read about the fights. Finnish people are getting worried that the EU was the biggest mistake they ever made. 15,000 of their best and brightest have moved abroad for work; and, their millionaires are retiring in tax-haven countries. Off-shoring is just as bad, and, there are no jobs for unskilled/marginally skilled people. Lots of things getting automated.

    But, they have always had the (guarded) border because of their epic fight with Russia 100 years ago, and again, in 1939. They also have army, navy & airforce unlike many other neighboring countries.

    President Sipila, about a month ago, at the WH (with Trump) sort of bitch-slapped the American press in attendance that Europe & the USA must work with Russia...and, that Finland feels that this is the only rational method to have peace with Russia. Even though I don't like the PM nor the Finnish president (they are not sufficiently right wing/patriotic for me), I am glad he told the USA to quit the Russia, Russia, Russia thing. Stirring up nuclear fever is not acceptable. So, at least he acted like a man towards US press and Neocons/Neoliberals in the audience. So, the dirty globalist politicians are now having a tougher time with a growing, concerned public. Finns are difficult to lie to.

  85. @Wilkey
    A wall is a necessary but not sufficient condition to secure our borders. It will do perhaps 40% of the work, at most - but that's a hell of a lot of work. The 40% it keeps out will be the worst 40% - the dumbshits who couldn't even manage to get a visa; the ones who commit the most publicized crimes, like the Kate Steinle murder.

    That's one reason building a wall may be the last thing we want to do to secure our border, not the first. The other is that a wall will be such a solid, visible sign of enforcement that far too many voters will foolishly think - or be fooled into thinking - that a wall is all we need. When it doesn't do 100% o the work one open borders advocate after another will say "See, we told you so."

    So we should be willing to give up our insistence on a wall (for now) if there's other significant laws we can pass instead.

    Replies: @Anon

    Even if everything went perfectly according to you guys, and illegal immigration were cut in half or better,we’re still being swamped with legal immigration, and even if all of it stopped tomorrow, demographic trends would ensure our destruction.

    And Africa and Asia are going to be sending a lot more people than Mexico ever did. Sorry if this sounds negative, but it’s important to be realistic. The only way the nation will be saved is through large-scale violence, and we don’t have the stomach for that, or even the political will.

    • Replies: @bomag
    @Anon


    we’re still being swamped with legal immigration... demographic trends would ensure our destruction.
     
    One can get too bleak. Enforcement of law will let good men flourish. That's a do-able goal.

    Africa and Asia are going to be sending a lot more people than Mexico ever did
     
    The Atlantic and Pacific are still pretty good walls. The problem is that evil people are actively facilitating the transfer of populations. Get a handle on this, and the historic work of the nation can continue.
    , @Anonymous
    @Anon

    People talk about legal immigration as being much better than illegal, because of the caliber of immigrant we get, but another point people don't really seem to know or mention- many of the legal immigrants come from countries that have 'tax treaties' with the US and owe little to no tax for years after coming here. Which is stupid, because they benefit from using resources our gov't provides.

    Replies: @Opinionator

  86. @AnotherDad
    @Guy de Champlagne


    This is the fallacy people on the right constantly fall into: thinking that anything that pisses off liberals and the cultural elite must be a great idea.
     
    Actually what pisses off the left usually is a pretty great idea.

    And in the case of the Wall it obviously is.

    Not going to rehash in depth everything that I and others have said for the Wall--it's obvious stuff. But the key points:
    -- security is multi-layered; if you're in a high crime neighborhood you don't leave your door unlocked just because you also have a shotgun; yes we need mandatory E-verify and raids in the HomeDepot parking lot ... but we also need to lock the front door
    -- the Wall makes a statement of seriousness and national sovereignty that we now lack; it says that American is a nation, with a border and the right to defend it; it says Americans are a people with the right to keep others out of our territory--all reasons the left hates the Wall
    -- with the Wall up and people unable to cross, you will dramatically stem the flow, because most people will simply stop trying to get in by border jumping;
    -- you'll actually get rid of a bunch of illegals now inside; they routinely go down to Mexico, because they are Mexicans and that's where they really live and where their families are; they'll go down eventually and find they can't get back and get on with their lives in their own nation
    -- the Wall is still there, still working still even after the next Democrat is elected; that's not true of most interior enforcement measures

    The Wall isn't all you need to do, but it's one of the things you must do.

    Replies: @International Jew

    Actually what pisses off the left usually is a pretty great idea.

    Reliable rule of thumb, yes.

  87. @Jack D

    If we build a wall, and let’s suppose it works pretty well, the possibility of massive illegal immigration ceases to be an ongoing threat and becomes more of a historical idiosyncrasy.
     
    You are supposing facts not in evidence. Even if the wall and its supporting systems was effective (a wall by itself does little - it still has to be monitored and patrolled, etc.) the US-Mexico border is not the only point of entry into the country. Any time you have massive differences in standards of living there is a lot of pressure from those on the low side of the equation. And there is a lot of $ to be made smuggling people in. Chinese immigrants pay up to $80,000 to get smuggled in.

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16422719

    (That was 10 years ago - I don't know how much it is now).


    If the wall is built that only make the pressure worse. So people look for other ways to get in. A lot of illegals are people who arrived here on a plane, with a visa, and then overstayed. Expect people to fly to Canada and try to sneak across the Northern border. Maybe people will come by boat. With false papers. Claiming refugee status. Thru tunnels under the wall. Etc.

    If the Wall was really effective it would end drug smuggling across the Mexican border. What are the chances that's really going to happen?

    Replies: @Rod1963, @AM, @Opinionator, @AnotherDad, @JSM, @DRA, @DRA, @SteveRogers42

    If the wall is built that only make the pressure worse.

    No it doesn’t. Ok, a little bit, but not very much.

    The “pressure” is the relative standard of living and the other amenities. Five bucks a day versus fifty bucks a day at the bottom end. That doesn’t change, or changes very little only to the extent that the Wall works and raises the standard of living for low skilled people in the US or drops it for low skilled people in Mexico and Central America.

    If the wall is built that only make the pressure worse. So people look for other ways to get in. A lot of illegals are people who arrived here on a plane, with a visa, and then overstayed. Expect people to fly to Canada and try to sneak across the Northern border. Maybe people will come by boat. With false papers. Claiming refugee status. Thru tunnels under the wall. Etc.

    The “pressure” is actually much much greater for Indians. There are about 1 billion of them who are by our standards very poor and would love to come to the US. Even if a significant number are homebodies, there are still a few hundred million who would like to be here. But they aren’t here. Why? And why are Mexicans–despite being much, much, much better off–here by the millions?

    Yes, some people will try other methods. But if those other methods were easier, they would be using them now instead of marching through the desert, and paying good money to cross with coyotes, potentially subjecting yourself to theft, rape, death and with a decent chance the border patrol may catch you and send you back. Hint: because it’s the easiest way in for them. The other ways they couldn’t do at all or were much harder, much more expensive.

    This stuff really isn’t very complicated.

    If the Wall was really effective it would end drug smuggling across the Mexican border. What are the chances that’s really going to happen?

    I don’t even know what to say about this sort of argument. Maybe put this on the SAT verbal?

  88. Very disappointing to see the sheer number of zombie like “they’ll just get a 35 foot ladder” style responses here from a lot of commenters who should be able to do better–understand costs and invecentives, understand multilayered solutions.

    Fine, don’t close your door at night, they could always come in through a window or mail themselves in via Amazon. Closing and locking your door is just stupid.

    Seriously, there are 7 billion people in the world. For 6 billion of them getting to the US would be a distinct upgrade in prosperity and quality of life. For 5 billion a very substantial one. Pew did a survey a few years back and basically one in five or six people wanted to emmigrate, half of them–half a billion–wanted to come here. Yet our illegal population seems to skew toward a particular nationality. Why? Not the world’s most populous nation. Far, far from the poorest. In fact it’s the only nation where the people are actually fatter than the US? Why the heck are so many of our illegals from Mexico?

    iSteve is great, but i guess the autism problem here is real.

    • LOL: Opinionator
    • Replies: @Opinionator
    @AnotherDad

    Pew did a survey a few years back and basically one in five or six people wanted to emmigrate, half of them–half a billion–wanted to come here.

    This is almost certainly a massive understatement of preferences. Even Europeans want to immigrate here. (To the extent it is accurate, it is probably part a function of people living in ignorance of what the United States has to offer. That number stands to increase as knowledge spreads via technology and migratory chains.)

  89. @AnotherDad
    Very disappointing to see the sheer number of zombie like "they'll just get a 35 foot ladder" style responses here from a lot of commenters who should be able to do better--understand costs and invecentives, understand multilayered solutions.

    Fine, don't close your door at night, they could always come in through a window or mail themselves in via Amazon. Closing and locking your door is just stupid.

    Seriously, there are 7 billion people in the world. For 6 billion of them getting to the US would be a distinct upgrade in prosperity and quality of life. For 5 billion a very substantial one. Pew did a survey a few years back and basically one in five or six people wanted to emmigrate, half of them--half a billion--wanted to come here. Yet our illegal population seems to skew toward a particular nationality. Why? Not the world's most populous nation. Far, far from the poorest. In fact it's the only nation where the people are actually fatter than the US? Why the heck are so many of our illegals from Mexico?

    iSteve is great, but i guess the autism problem here is real.

    Replies: @Opinionator

    Pew did a survey a few years back and basically one in five or six people wanted to emmigrate, half of them–half a billion–wanted to come here.

    This is almost certainly a massive understatement of preferences. Even Europeans want to immigrate here. (To the extent it is accurate, it is probably part a function of people living in ignorance of what the United States has to offer. That number stands to increase as knowledge spreads via technology and migratory chains.)

  90. The following comment is too long. Skip it unless you don’t mind the extra words. It’s late, I didn’t have time to edit to make it much shorter and easier to read. Apologies granted.

    Is the U.S.A. a nation? Doesn’t a nation require that its members have something in common, other than a piece of paper, a passport, a soc sec # or a birth certificate.

    We no longer share a common European racial background.
    Europeans are already a minority in many blue regions of our country.

    We no longer share basic cultural values, such as work ethic, respect for private property and the rule of law, civilizational higher education, responsible sexual cultural customs, or respect and belief in the institution of the family.

    We no longer share the moral and ethical values upheld by traditional western religions. We don’t even share a common language, according to the U.S. Census.

    In our progressive milieu what makes us Americans is the goods we consume – made in China – and the culture we consume – made in Hollywood and Manhattan.

    Globalization has standardized consumption around world. The core of the global culture is Facebook, smartphones, and gangsta rap.

    The whole world is on Facebook, loves smartphones and listens to rap music. On what basis are we going to tell an illegal that he is not as American as any Tyrone Okereke from anywhere USA.

    We have not been a nation since at least WWII. White nationalism is a sub-culture, like gays, hipsters and the other tribes that make up our society.

    Our future is not in turning America into a nation. It’s 100 years too late for that. The best we can do is learn to survive in ways that allow us to keep our culture, heritage, values, and property.

    Forced integration will kill us. Enforced political correctness will destroy our minds. Once again, like the European colonist 400 years ago, we must learn to survive in a country were the non-Europeans outnumber us, compete with us for territory and resources, and will attack us unless we take security precautions.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Lucifer’s Barrister

    That is an unpleasant reality that you describe, but it seems quite probably to be an accurate diagnosis.

    Reluctantly, kind of agreed.

  91. @Guy de Champlagne
    This is the fallacy people on the right constantly fall into: thinking that anything that pisses off liberals and the cultural elite must be a great idea. The wall is a useful gauge of Trump's broader intentions towards immigration at any given moment. But actually fixing the immigration issue would involve teaming up with economic liberals to use government regulation to punish those that employ, house, and bank with illegal immigrants. These are economic migrants and the only way to fix the problem is through economic regulation.

    I'm not against the wall but, even if we somehow win the continual fight to keep it manned and maintained properly, it's just going to create a wack a mole dynamic where people just start coming into the country in other ways. Supposedly half of illegal immigrants are already visa overstays.

    Replies: @englishmike, @Jus' Sayin'..., @Nico, @Neoconned, @AB-, @Lagertha, @Lagertha, @Lagertha, @Lagertha, @Lagertha, @AnotherDad, @Dave Pinsen

    You want to win the fight to keep it manned? How about this:

    1) Announce that the TSA is going to be shut down in 6 months, and airport screening turned over to airports.

    2) Create an auxiliary border patrol to supplement the current one, and hire every former TSA employee at 1.2x their current salary, plus generous relocation assistance to staff it.

    3) Hire an additional 50k auxiliaries, with preference given to black high school graduates with clean records.

    Get rid of an unpopular federal agency, provide good paying jobs to ~80k minorities, and maybe spur a bit of gentrification in the processs.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    @Dave Pinsen

    Dave, great answer to the nitwit Guy (never seen a thing you wrote, Guy, that made any sense). The TSA is not just unpopular, it is unconstitutional, and it is a great display for the world to see our "freedoms" that we are supposed to be spreading like manure around the world.

    Those guys don't get paid much, and as much as I don't like the entire unreasonable searches and seizures by these blue goobers, many of them are OK people. Most people would really like to have a job in which they feel like they are doing something useful and would be much happier. I have seen that in myself and others.

    Great comment, Dave!

    , @SteveRogers42
    @Dave Pinsen

    Excellent, except for clause 2 of part 3). No more Aff Action of any kind.

    Other than that, Trump should have done as you suggest on Day One.

  92. @BB753
    A wall is also a statement of national sovereignty. In our post-national, globalist world, it amounts to a declaration of war to the enemies of the nation state. I fear that the establishment will never allow a wall to be erected. Over their dead bodies.
    When Trump won, he thought being president was tantamount to being the CEO of a corporation, the real boss with executive powers. What he's found out is that the POTUS has virtually no power when virtually the entire civil service, legislators, senators, judges and top brass in the military decide that they're not going to obey his orders, as an outsider and iconoclast. With no support from Wall Street, the mainstream media, Harvard, Silicon Valley and most big corporations, there's no way he can get anything done.
    You either play by their rules or they kick you out of power, in a soft coup.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Boethiuss, @lavoisier, @ben tillman

    When Trump won, he thought being president was tantamount to being the CEO of a corporation, the real boss with executive powers. What he’s found out is that the POTUS has virtually no power when virtually the entire civil service, legislators, senators, judges and top brass in the military decide that they’re not going to obey his orders, as an outsider and iconoclast. With no support from Wall Street, the mainstream media, Harvard, Silicon Valley and most big corporations, there’s no way he can get anything done.

    No, no, no, no no. In fact the reason why this is wrong was largelywhat motivated my comment that Steve made a post from.

    POTUS, in the abstract and in the case of recent examples, has lots and lots and lots of power. President Donald Trump, is pretty much useless. The Left basically made a rule where, what the President says goes, unless its Trump in which case it really doesn’t count. Trump’s own incompetence has made that stick. Most of the commentors here want to believe that it’s because Trump is a nationalist, or opposes immigration, or what-not. But that’s a crock. Things would be much different if it were President Bannon, or President Pat Buchanan, or Jeff Sessions, or anybody else.

    Donald Trump is a the point of vulnerability.

    • Replies: @BB753
    @Boethiuss

    It's not just the person, but the way the political system works. Only democrat presidents enjoy the full powers of presidency and beyond because the whole government is run by democrats to start with, particularly the judicial branch.

  93. @Anonymous
    @YetAnotherAnon

    "Someone should do a cartoon of a slumped and sleepy Trump under a large sombrero, being asked by Uncle Sam (or John Doe) when that wall’s gonna be built."

    Trump's been pushing since Day 1 to keep good on his promises to the American people who elected him, and the judiciary, and both sides of the aisle in Congress have been thwarting it every way they can. In the face of all of this, he is increasingly forced to minimize and compromise on it to get anything done. He is after all, only 1 man. The checks and balances built into the system to protect us weren't designed to deal with overwhelming treason throughout the government.

    What Trump's inability to push forward an agenda for the wall, illegals, and Muslim immigration that as clear as a bell is in the best interest and safety of the American people and their descendants, really represents is how bad things have gotten in the US.

    Replies: @YetAnotherAnon, @Anonymous

    Nonetheless, his tweets about “do we really want to throw out useful people?” are 180 degrees removed from the policy that got him elected. It is far more important to be serious about enforcing immigration law, and be seen to be serious about it, than to worry over individuals who will always be the exception to the rule.

    Australia chucks out white Brits who are perfectly useful and productive citizens whenever they break immigration law, even inadvertantly. Not so long ago a couple of care home nurses (who got a visa to work in the remoter parts of Oz i.e. everywhere not a city) were slung out after it was found they’d moved about 100 yards inside a forbidden (to them) zone. The attitude is “you know the visa conditions, don’t break them“.

    • Agree: Opinionator
  94. @BB753
    A wall is also a statement of national sovereignty. In our post-national, globalist world, it amounts to a declaration of war to the enemies of the nation state. I fear that the establishment will never allow a wall to be erected. Over their dead bodies.
    When Trump won, he thought being president was tantamount to being the CEO of a corporation, the real boss with executive powers. What he's found out is that the POTUS has virtually no power when virtually the entire civil service, legislators, senators, judges and top brass in the military decide that they're not going to obey his orders, as an outsider and iconoclast. With no support from Wall Street, the mainstream media, Harvard, Silicon Valley and most big corporations, there's no way he can get anything done.
    You either play by their rules or they kick you out of power, in a soft coup.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Boethiuss, @lavoisier, @ben tillman

    He is not powerless if he keeps his promises and fights for what he claims he believes.

    The American people will support him against the establishment if he keeps his promises.

    So far he is failing to do that. Failing miserably.

    If he thinks making friends with Ryan, Schumer and Pelosi is going to protect him from the deep state he is delusional.

    The only hope for Trump is to lead. And that means first and foremost keep your promises.

    END DACA and no new amnesty. Have a fireside chat with the American people and tell them that he is going to build the wall using a novel strategy. Let the traitorous establishment scum like Ryan, McCain, Graham, and Flake come out of the closet and defy him. That would demonstrate to even the low information white voter who keeps electing these vermin how stupid they have been voting for these traitors to the nation. Perhaps they will get red pilled and start opening up their minds to the possibility that their elected representatives are bought and paid for whores.

    Stop making excuses for Trump. Either he leads and takes a stand on these vitally important issues or he is finished. He was elected to lead, not to negotiate with the devils.

    He needs to get smart fast.

    • Replies: @BB753
    @lavoisier

    I'm not making excuses for Trump. You have to be blind to not see what's happening: the government actively sabotaged the early Trump administration and what we have now in its place is some sort of compromise.

  95. In other news the Libyan coastguard have been burning immigrant boats, someone has clearly decided to finally do something, funny how easy it was to do something.

    • Replies: @athEIst
    @LondonBob

    Libya(thanks US&EU)is a failed state. I doubt it has a coast guard. Last I heard the Italian Navy rescues these boats 50 miles off the coast of Africa and tows them to Italy.

    Replies: @Brutusale

    , @SteveRogers42
    @LondonBob

    Bob -- please pass the sauce on that.

  96. @Guy de Champlagne
    @Jus' Sayin'...

    There are a lot of democrats who don't like immigration, even when it's presented as about the immigrants themselves, and you could substantially increase that number by talking instead about the businesses and wealthy individuals that profit off of and exploit immigrants, and cast them as the villain instead. If republicans tend to lose in these negotiations that certainly in part because they're stupider, but it's also because they don't actually want to reduce immigration. Republicans want immigration because the party is controlled and financed by the economically conservative (pro big business and pro wealthy) factions.

    Even if teaming with liberals is impossible, which I reject, that doesn't change the fact that the way to solve the problem is through business regulation not through a wall.

    Replies: @bomag

    the way to solve the problem is through business regulation not through a wall

    Walls do work, both as a barrier and as a symbol.

    Business regulation is an excellent move, but it doesn’t solve the problem alone. There is enough unregulated activity to keep the problem festering, and for that matter a lot move here not caring whether they ever work or not; they live off relatives, the community, and the charity network.

    it’s just going to create a wack a mole dynamic

    Life is a game of whack-a-mole. Do farmers quit controlling weeds just because they grow back? We need to have multiple strategies on the table; implementing them one at a time. The Wall right now has the most political support; let’s show that we can get that going and that it has some effect, then move on to the next item.

  97. @IHTG
    @TG


    Until about 1970 the United States had no wall on it’s southern border with Mexico, and virtually no illegal immigration. Because the law was enforced.
     
    I doubt that was the only reason.

    Replies: @Cloudbuster

    The definitive scholarly work on the correlation-causation fallacy:

  98. @Dave Pinsen
    @International Jew

    Israel wasn't facing economic migrants from Sub-Saharan Africa in the '50s and '60s.

    Replies: @BB753

    Neither was Europe.

  99. @OilcanFloyd
    The issue of the wall, DACA, chain migration, demographics, etc, is whether or not politicians have to keep their campaign promises, or even follow or uphold the laws and work for the common good. I guess it's being sorted out whether America is a real nation any longer, or if it's just some combination of cash cow, play thing for elites, and sweat shop.

    Replies: @Harry Baldwin

    I used my agree option already, but heartily “Agree.”

  100. @Anonymous
    @BB753

    "With no support from Wall Street, the mainstream media, Harvard, Silicon Valley and most big corporations, there’s no way he can get anything done."

    Which still makes him hell and gone better than Hillary would have been. I'll take a semi-lame duck who sends a message to the world that the people aren't drinking the koolaid, and slows (and in some cases reverses) a bit of the left agenda, than an establishment shill who floors the accelerator of the car driving straight off the cliff.

    Replies: @BB753

    So, you’re happy with your candidate being powerless as a president?
    What’s Trump got to loose at this point? He’s 71 and a billionaire. If it were up to me, I’d stage a subtle counter-coup. Drain the stamp, for God’s sake, as promised. Start firing people. Impeach judges. Send that POS Pence on a world – wide diplomatic tour non-stop for a couple of years, as far as Washington as possible. Make him visit every freaking country on the planet, the shittier the better. Dig up the dirt on Ryan, Mitt Cuckney and McDonnell, and the justices too. Bend them to your will.
    Don’t trust anybody who’s not 100% loyal to you. Fire dissenters and backstabbers from your staff. Ostracize or destroy anybody who stands in your way, be it a government employee, a judge, a top-ranked official or a military officer. That’s the way the Left has had its way for 8 decades. Its time for the Right to clean house or die trying. This is our last stand.

    • Replies: @SteveRogers42
    @BB753

    Simply hitting "agree" would be too mild a response for this. We all know what needs to be done. Does Trump?

    Replies: @BB753

    , @EdwardM
    @BB753

    Agree with this but, even if he could do it all, there is still this problem:


    Don’t trust anybody who’s not 100% loyal to you.
     
    There aren't enough such people. Trump has done a terrible job filling the ranks of assistant secretaries, deputy assistant secretaries, Schedule Cs, U.S. Attorneys, and all of the other presidential appointees that are required to implement his agenda.

    Maybe this is because he doesn't understand how the federal government works -- where it's much harder for a strong CEO to get the bureaucracy to bend to his will -- maybe it's because he thinks that leaving these posts vacant can shrink the scope of the government, or maybe it's because he can't find enough loyal, qualified people.

    I find it unseemly that he has Ivanka and Jared in such powerful roles, but it's hard to fault him when he realizes that at least these two are loyal to him.

    Replies: @BB753

  101. @Bill Jones
    We don't need a wall.
    We need 2 barbed wire fences 100 feet apart and the willingness to shoot anything that moves between them.

    The problem would end in a month.

    Replies: @oddsbodkins, @PiltdownMan, @AM, @Jack D

    We need 2 barbed wire fences 100 feet apart and the willingness to shoot anything that moves between them.

    That’s what we’re actually getting, as far as I can tell. We might need a more picturesque wall, though, between a few sections.

  102. @Anon
    @Wilkey

    Even if everything went perfectly according to you guys, and illegal immigration were cut in half or better,we're still being swamped with legal immigration, and even if all of it stopped tomorrow, demographic trends would ensure our destruction.

    And Africa and Asia are going to be sending a lot more people than Mexico ever did. Sorry if this sounds negative, but it's important to be realistic. The only way the nation will be saved is through large-scale violence, and we don't have the stomach for that, or even the political will.

    Replies: @bomag, @Anonymous

    we’re still being swamped with legal immigration… demographic trends would ensure our destruction.

    One can get too bleak. Enforcement of law will let good men flourish. That’s a do-able goal.

    Africa and Asia are going to be sending a lot more people than Mexico ever did

    The Atlantic and Pacific are still pretty good walls. The problem is that evil people are actively facilitating the transfer of populations. Get a handle on this, and the historic work of the nation can continue.

  103. @Anonym
    @El Dato

    Modern “walls” will probably rapidly be light wirework patrolled by drones (flying or walking). Easier on animal migration, too. Hopefully the drones will not be “lethal force” dispensing, they might even ask you for ID in a professional manner.

    I like the idea of giving them 20 seconds to comply.

    https://youtu.be/Hzlt7IbTp6M

    Replies: @the cruncher

    Auto-sentries, but with bullets:

  104. @Dave Pinsen
    @Guy de Champlagne

    You want to win the fight to keep it manned? How about this:

    1) Announce that the TSA is going to be shut down in 6 months, and airport screening turned over to airports.

    2) Create an auxiliary border patrol to supplement the current one, and hire every former TSA employee at 1.2x their current salary, plus generous relocation assistance to staff it.

    3) Hire an additional 50k auxiliaries, with preference given to black high school graduates with clean records.

    Get rid of an unpopular federal agency, provide good paying jobs to ~80k minorities, and maybe spur a bit of gentrification in the processs.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @SteveRogers42

    Dave, great answer to the nitwit Guy (never seen a thing you wrote, Guy, that made any sense). The TSA is not just unpopular, it is unconstitutional, and it is a great display for the world to see our “freedoms” that we are supposed to be spreading like manure around the world.

    Those guys don’t get paid much, and as much as I don’t like the entire unreasonable searches and seizures by these blue goobers, many of them are OK people. Most people would really like to have a job in which they feel like they are doing something useful and would be much happier. I have seen that in myself and others.

    Great comment, Dave!

  105. Pretty late to this thread, but I had written a few comments last evening below John Derbyshire’s article. In response to another commenter about the wall, or just a damn good barrier:

    Do you know that that $15 billion is chump change for the Feral Gov’t? It is less than 1 day out of the year’s spending, and that’s based on our “representatives” putting in 8 hour days 5 days a week! (The budget is $4,000 billion yearly.). Not only that, but note that $15 billion job means just about $10,000,000 per mile or so of border than needs to be fenced (not the whole thing, as there are impassible areas. Compare that 10 million/mile to interstate highway construction, keeping in mind that interstates must more often be built where people live, hence there are land costs.

    The price of a secure border is a PITTANCE – let’s get that straight right now. It’s not about the money!

    Keep that in mind – the money is not at all material to any argument on either side, or shouldn’t be for anyone numerate in the least.

  106. @Jack D

    If we build a wall, and let’s suppose it works pretty well, the possibility of massive illegal immigration ceases to be an ongoing threat and becomes more of a historical idiosyncrasy.
     
    You are supposing facts not in evidence. Even if the wall and its supporting systems was effective (a wall by itself does little - it still has to be monitored and patrolled, etc.) the US-Mexico border is not the only point of entry into the country. Any time you have massive differences in standards of living there is a lot of pressure from those on the low side of the equation. And there is a lot of $ to be made smuggling people in. Chinese immigrants pay up to $80,000 to get smuggled in.

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16422719

    (That was 10 years ago - I don't know how much it is now).


    If the wall is built that only make the pressure worse. So people look for other ways to get in. A lot of illegals are people who arrived here on a plane, with a visa, and then overstayed. Expect people to fly to Canada and try to sneak across the Northern border. Maybe people will come by boat. With false papers. Claiming refugee status. Thru tunnels under the wall. Etc.

    If the Wall was really effective it would end drug smuggling across the Mexican border. What are the chances that's really going to happen?

    Replies: @Rod1963, @AM, @Opinionator, @AnotherDad, @JSM, @DRA, @DRA, @SteveRogers42

    If the wall is built that only make the pressure worse. So people look for other ways to get in. A lot of illegals are people who arrived here on a plane, with a visa, and then overstayed. Expect people to fly to Canada and try to sneak across the Northern border. Maybe people will come by boat. With false papers. Claiming refugee status. Thru tunnels under the wall. Etc.

    Yabbada yabbada yabbada

    The harder you make it to come in, the fewer people that will make it in.

    You’re just a dissembling anti-White like all the rest who make silly arguments against the Wall
    but… Israel’s got one. Go talk to them.

  107. If the wall battle is symbolic of the fundamental question of whether there should be a right of the people of the country to determine who and how many are allowed to immigrate, it’s will a Pyrrhic victory if people believe the wall alone is capable of achieving that goal. Before the Trump iteration, wall construction has been approved by politicians who had no intent to control immigration. Indeed, it has been border boob-bait for bubbas before and could be again.

    I wish the country was being asked to consider the fundamental question directly because failing to answer that leads people to ignore the logical extension and consequences of inactions and actions regarding immigration. That allows interested parties with political power to make choices that lead to outcomes that much of the country will fail to anticipate.

    • Replies: @Opinionator
    @jskdn

    I wish the country was being asked to consider the fundamental question directly because failing to answer that leads people to ignore the logical extension and consequences of inactions and actions regarding immigration.

    What is the fundamental question to consider?

  108. @Opinionator
    @Jack D

    Do you at least agree though that we have a right to build a Wall?

    Replies: @Jack D

    Sure, but the question is whether that would merely be a meaningless (though expensive) symbolic gesture or a turning point? In order for it to be a turning point you would have to (fighting the Federal courts and the Permanent Government every step of the way) end chain migration, send back the illegals who are already here (not just the worst criminals), close the door to all the other loopholes (bogus “refugee” claims, etc.) , end free education and other free government benefits for illegal aliens, etc., etc. You would have to turn the whole giant ocean liner of government in a different direction. Unfortunately, I see no sign that Trump has the support of his own party, let alone the rest of the government , that would be needed to effectuate such a U- turn (or even to take that 1st step).

    • Replies: @AnotherDad
    @Jack D


    Sure, but the question is whether that would merely be a meaningless (though expensive) symbolic gesture or a turning point? In order for it to be a turning point you would have to (fighting the Federal courts and the Permanent Government every step of the way) end chain migration, send back the illegals who are already here (not just the worst criminals), close the door to all the other loopholes (bogus “refugee” claims, etc.) , end free education and other free government benefits for illegal aliens, etc., etc. You would have to turn the whole giant ocean liner of government in a different direction.
     
    This is exactly backwards.

    The Wall is precisely the one enforcement mechanism that keeps working even when the bureaucrat-legal apparatus is foot-dragging and hostile.

    We have a Border Patrol and they do their job. But for most of the border it's like playing center field during batting practice. The illegals swing away and the BP agents have to run out and catch what they can. The Wall changes the dynamic and will make the BorderPatrol dramatically more effective. (We've seen that in the sectors that now have serious barriers.)

    The Wall will keep working even when ObamaII gets back into office. It be will politically very-difficult for the next traitor-President to just tell the BP to stand down. (Obama didn't really fully do it. It would by wildly unpopular.)

    It's actually the interior stuff--E-verify, exit tracking, employer checks/round-ups/prosecutions, and deportation--that is most subject to bureaucrat-legal nullification. Don't get me wrong we need all that as well--and some things like exit-tracking and E-verify will be much tougher politically for the next Democrat to cancel. But overall those bureaucratic measures--the people stuff--are much easier for the hostile traitors to undermine.

    The Wall just keeps on working and working and working.

    Replies: @Intelligent Dasein, @Achmed E. Newman

  109. @Lagertha
    @Lagertha

    Finland has a 1.5 kilometer wide wall, BTW!!!!! fence first; guarded with guns; next: long 100 yard or so sand pit/sand lot (footprints and "matter" is a dead give away); trees and shrubs (Soviets had no money on their side) and then: Soviet (now Russian) old metal 12 foot high fence. Kid you knot: 12 feet for both Finns and Russians btw, on both sides. If you climbed that, either side, you were shot dead...maybe, even today. There are only a few roadways on the 1,300 mile fence.

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk, @OilcanFloyd, @Joe Stalin, @SteveRogers42

    The US Border Patrol also uses this method:

    Glenn Spencer — American Border Patrol — June 13, 2016
    Americans Unaware
    The American people know that our government has failed to secure the border, but do they know that the mainstream media refuse to tell them why?
    No.
    Let me give you just one example of the silliness of the US Border Patrol.
    I drive along the border near my ranch three time a day. This morning I spotted a US Border Patrol vehicle dragging tires. This was not unusual — they do it all the time.
    I thought you might like to be told why they do this.
    They drag the tires along the border to make a smooth path that will make it easier for them to spot the footprints of border crossers. It may be many hours before they drive along the path to look for footprints. If they see footprints (which is unlikely since many border crossers wear carpet over their shoes,) they then might decide to try to find the border crossers — but probably not.
    Six years ago ABP began testing a system that detects border crossers instantly. It has been greatly improved and works every time.
    We can secure the border, but our government and the mainstream media (including Fox News) don’t want this done.
    We will continue to be exposed to the type of attack seen in Orlando so long as we are kept unaware of solutions.

    http://americanborderpatrol.com/16-FEATURES/160613/160613-Feature.html

  110. @Bill Jones
    We don't need a wall.
    We need 2 barbed wire fences 100 feet apart and the willingness to shoot anything that moves between them.

    The problem would end in a month.

    Replies: @oddsbodkins, @PiltdownMan, @AM, @Jack D

    The question is not one of technology but that of political will. You are right that a month of machine gunning border crossers would end the problem forever but we could not machine gun border crossers even for ONE DAY. The first little Mexican girl who is machine gunned in a photogenic way would become the greatest martyr of our times and the outcry would be heard on other planets.

    Speaking of political will, the E. Germans had an effective FENCE based system at the W. German border (not around Berlin but the much longer border w. W. Germany). In between the border FENCES there was a death zone with trip wires and anti-personnel mines, etc. Even the E. Germans had to remove the mines after 1984 in the face of international condemnation.

  111. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous
    @YetAnotherAnon

    "Someone should do a cartoon of a slumped and sleepy Trump under a large sombrero, being asked by Uncle Sam (or John Doe) when that wall’s gonna be built."

    Trump's been pushing since Day 1 to keep good on his promises to the American people who elected him, and the judiciary, and both sides of the aisle in Congress have been thwarting it every way they can. In the face of all of this, he is increasingly forced to minimize and compromise on it to get anything done. He is after all, only 1 man. The checks and balances built into the system to protect us weren't designed to deal with overwhelming treason throughout the government.

    What Trump's inability to push forward an agenda for the wall, illegals, and Muslim immigration that as clear as a bell is in the best interest and safety of the American people and their descendants, really represents is how bad things have gotten in the US.

    Replies: @YetAnotherAnon, @Anonymous

    The government can be forced to bend to the will of the people, even this government. The push for Amnesty has failed three times over the last decade, despite a heavy push from both parties because the people have made their views known to their Congressmen, and it is incredibly unpopular. If whites would push their Congressmen on more of these issues and make more of a stink about things that displeased us, like our friends who wear the small hats do, we could move this country a lot further to the sane right.

  112. )Speaking of political will, the E. Germans had an effective FENCE based system at the W. German border (not around Berlin but the much longer border w. W. Germany)

    Yeah, it’s totally sad how a wall would separate the traditional MexiAmerican nation?? What the?

    You are right that a month of machine gunning border crossers would end the problem forever but we could not machine gun border crossers even for ONE DAY. The first little Mexican girl who is machine gunned in a photogenic way would become the greatest martyr of our times and the outcry would be heard on other planets.

    All hail the power of propaganda. And what would little Mexican girl be doing at wall like that? Where were her parents?

    This isn’t wall to keep people in, like the East German wall. That was a prison. This is to prevent the criminals from coming in, aka to keep people out. There is big difference.

    The thing is the media might get their shot like that. They might even make the shot up, like they have done so many times in the past. If we learn to weather the storm, it will pass.

  113. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Patrick in SC
    I've always said the wall has a powerful symbolic component. It says: "This is our border. Regardless of how we acquired this living space, it's ours now, no matter how hard you try and colonize the place."

    This is why the most common argument I hear against building a wall are not that we can't afford it, or that it's impractical, or that it will be too easily breeched --- all defensible positions. Rather, it's usually just "It will never happen!" or some variation of "THAT'S RACIST!" or "Statue of Liberty" blah, blah, blah.

    This opposition to affirming our southern border jibes precisely with the concept of "sanctuary cities." We don't like certain laws, so we'll just ignore them. We don't believe in borders --- unless it's our gated community or Malibu, CA --- so we're against anything which affirms their existence.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    And it’s not just sanctuary cities. I even saw in a library recently a stack of pamphlets near the front door in Spanish encouraging people not to speak to ICE, not to let them into their homes, etc. And many larger, left-leaning organizations are telling their employees not to comply with the requests of ICE officers.

    Institutional level defiance of the law by government agencies and large institutions.

  114. @415 reasons
    @TG

    Zuckerberg's house in San Francisco does actually have a pretty substantial fence.

    Replies: @Jim Don Bob

    Zuckerberg’s house in San Francisco does actually have a pretty substantial fence.

    As Sarah Hoyt likes to say over at Insty’s place: “This is my shocked face”.

  115. Cuomo urges Dems to use ‘extreme caution’ when bargaining with Trump to protect the DACA

    In this case, Cuomo argued, “what the transaction is is the President saying to the Democrats, ‘I’ll give you what you already have, which is DACA, and in exchange, I want more money for border security with Mexico, which … is going to turn into a wall by the time he’s finished.”

    He predicted Trump will use the extra security money to install cameras, sensors and an electric grid along the southern border that would sound an alarm if anyone cross the grid.

    “Then the President will say, ‘I have a cyber wall. Better than the wall we were talking about. Better than a fence. This is a new new electronic, highly sophisticated fence. This is a fence for 2020.’ That’s where it’s going to come out. I guarantee you,” Cuomo said.

  116. The first little Mexican girl who is machine gunned in a photogenic way would become the greatest martyr of our times and the outcry would be heard on other planets.

    Yep, and the left would make sure that would happen.

  117. The wall is symbolic.

    It might not be a bad idea as a public works project to build something big and beautiful, at least along certain parts of the border, and provide a lot of employment to US workers who are willing to go and camp out in the desert for a while. Perhaps a lot of students could work there between semesters to pay for their educations. But the workers must have affordable health care paid for by their employers, paid sick leave, annual vacations, and pensions. That will teach the Mexicans a thing or two about the way we do things in los Estados Unidos!

    However without internal reforms in the US to stop employers hiring illegals and prevent them from getting free access to schools or healthcare for their children, or using our public transportation, the wall alone will not stop illegal workers coming to the US and undermining the economic status and employment benefits of native-born workers and those with legal residency or naturalized status.

    So, if the benefits of building the wall outweigh the negatives, then let’s build it as long as we don’t think it is the whole solution to loss of control over our borders. Let’s build a wall that will be a massive tourist attraction that will rival the Grand Canyon. Let’s build something that will be visible from outer space.

    But let’s not say silly things like Mexico is going to pay for it. Mexico needs, if anything, to fortify its own southern border to stop migrants coming in from Central and South America on their way to the US. Since we like walls, maybe we should help them to build that wall. Then we need to fortify the coastline of Puerto Rico to stop Haitians and Dominicans getting onto US soil. That could provide lots of paramilitary jobs with government benefits for underutilized Puerto Rican workers.

    Then having cut off the routes for all the others, we only have the Mexicans left to worry about. We build the wall in key places along the frontier, put landmines in others, and hunt down and prosecute traffickers and large scale employers of illegal labor using human trafficking, RICO and antiterrorism laws to scare the shit out of them. We issue biometric social security cards to everyone, without which no one can get a job, health care, education, drive a vehicle, or buy a gun. We ban airline traffic between the US and its territories and Mexico. We refuse to play them at soccer. It sounds a bit fascist, but if something is really worth doing, then it calls for sacrifices by everybody.

  118. @Luke Lea
    The best wall would be a biometric Social Security card that you have to produce to buy groceries, fill up your car with gas, use a credit card, open a bank account, etc.. It's useless depending on employers not to employ illegals, even with e-verify. They'll figure a way to get around it, pay with cash for instance. But even cash purchases in grocery stores and filling stations could require an ID. Of course you would also have to have biometric visas, but that's no problem.

    Replies: @3g4me, @Achmed E. Newman, @SteveRogers42

    @33 Luke Lea: “The best wall would be a biometric Social Security card that you have to produce to buy groceries, fill up your car with gas, use a credit card, open a bank account, etc..”

    All hail the eternal State!

    Seriously, I sometimes read here and think I’ve accidentally stumbled into the National Review.

    “Walls don’t work.” That’s why Israel has so many.
    “It’s too expensive.” That’s why Hungary has one.
    “Gunpowder made walls obsolete.” That’s why Israel’s and Hungary’s “walls” are double layers of chain link fence and razor wire.
    “We need a national ID card.” Yeah, because the authorities need help in achieving their cashless, constantly monitored economy.

    Add in the terribly serious midwits and IQ fetishists who love employing endless dialectic to counter anti-White posters’ obvious rhetoric, and more and more frequently these threads epitomize America’s degradation and downfall. You are not all nearly as clever and serious as you believe, and the eternal “on the one hand, on the other hand” and “interesting argument” equivocation demonstrates you have no genuine “America first” sentiment, let alone a minimum of White racial consciousness. Sure, sure, you’ll be eaten last. Good on ya, mates .

    • Replies: @Opinionator
    @3g4me

    Show the way.

  119. @AnotherDad
    @Neoconned


    Trump is older than Clinton and yet we assume she wont run again? If Trump can why can’t she?
     
    Very much doubt it. But who cares. She won't be her party's nominee.

    When you lose an election your party believes you should have won, it pretty much ends your career. I have no idea who the Democrats will nominate, could be almost anyone at this point, but it won't be Hillary.

    Replies: @Jack D, @athEIst

    Hillary has clearly conceded in her interviews that she won’t run for President again. It is out of character for Hillary to concede anything – you can see by her book that she sticks to her guns, even after the barrels have blown out. The reason she did this is because she knows that it is ice in winter – the Party is never going to put her at the top of the ballot again no matter how much she may wish it. So this makes it look as if it is her choice.

  120. @Luke Lea
    The best wall would be a biometric Social Security card that you have to produce to buy groceries, fill up your car with gas, use a credit card, open a bank account, etc.. It's useless depending on employers not to employ illegals, even with e-verify. They'll figure a way to get around it, pay with cash for instance. But even cash purchases in grocery stores and filling stations could require an ID. Of course you would also have to have biometric visas, but that's no problem.

    Replies: @3g4me, @Achmed E. Newman, @SteveRogers42

    Luke, were the US ever to become the kind of locked-up police state that you desire, I will be climbing that wall from the US side into Mexico with my 21 ft extension ladder, the wife and kids and all my shit.

    I hope that was just some kind of book review or something (1984, or the last book of the New Testament, maybe?)

    Once I got out, I’d guess I would owe Fred Reed a big apology – it would hurt me to do that, but as long as he has an extra room at his hacienda ….

  121. @Neoconned
    @Guy de Champlagne

    A lotta ppl here are postulating everybody from Kamala Harris to thay Ellison dude from Minnesota as our next Democrat presidential candidate.

    Im convinced now given her book and media appearances giving a multitude of excuses Madam Chairman isnt done w her run for the presidency.

    Trump is older than Clinton and yet we assume she wont run again? If Trump can why can't she?

    Replies: @AnotherDad, @Art Deco, @Art Deco, @SteveRogers42

    Trump is older than Clinton and yet we assume she wont run again? If Trump can why can’t she?

    Trump is healthy. Hilligula? There’s an anaesthesiologist who has produced and posted a Youtube calling attention to various tics and public incidents. He’s careful to say he’s not a specialist in neurology and he is not her doctor. It’s his personal belief that she shows signs of Parkinson’s and that it’s a passable inference that it was first diagnosed in 2005.

    I’m recalling that Richard Gephardt was in 1988 appalled at the amount of personal information the media demanded of him and tried to organize a cartel with the other candidates to refuse to answer many inquiries. I don’t think he succeeded. It was interesting 16 years later how John Kerry trusted the Boston Globe sufficiently to examine his Navy personnel file when no one else was permitted to see it. John McCain in 2008 had to have long Q & A sessions with reporters with documentation present while BO got by with a vague one-page memo from his doctor. The media didn’t used to be extensions of the Democratic Party.

    And of course there was her month-long disappearance in 2012 after her William Holdenesque accident at home. (From which Bilge admitted it took her months to recover).

    • Agree: Johann Ricke
    • Replies: @Neoconned
    @Art Deco

    Im very aware of her health issues & i actually agree w a lot of the "conspiracy theories" about her health.

    Recall somebody claimed she was being poisoned....

    That being said 40-45pc of the country will vote for her no matter what and all it takes is convincing the other 5-10pc to back her.

    I prefer Trump to her but as i said before I'm a cynical Bernie Sanders supporter over Trump.

    Kamala is not Obama & cant do Tony Robbins fancy speeches talking hope & change. Right now the dems are in trouble because pf Hillary & Bernies age.....

    Latinos arent as likely to back some mixed race flake like Harris. Clinton is 1 half of a political dynasty and she isnt about to go down w/out a fight.

    Look at how defiant she is. Gore had class and recused himself after his defeat. She's the type who'd prefer to go down in flames....

  122. @Neoconned
    @Guy de Champlagne

    A lotta ppl here are postulating everybody from Kamala Harris to thay Ellison dude from Minnesota as our next Democrat presidential candidate.

    Im convinced now given her book and media appearances giving a multitude of excuses Madam Chairman isnt done w her run for the presidency.

    Trump is older than Clinton and yet we assume she wont run again? If Trump can why can't she?

    Replies: @AnotherDad, @Art Deco, @Art Deco, @SteveRogers42

    and yet we assume she wont run again? If Trump can why can’t she?

    Also third-time’s-a-charm is unusual in Presidential politics. Bob Dole managed it, but he only ran two vigorous and competitive campaigns; he was notably more prominent as a national politician after 1984 than he was at the time of his first run. Jerry Brown managed it; again, he ran only two vigorous campaigns; his 2d campaign failed immediately. Ronald Reagan managed it, but his first candidacy in 1968 incorporated almost no campaigning. He announced, was a rallying point for uncommitted delegates during the floor vote the following day, and then it was over. Hubert Humphrey managed it, but two of his campaigns were run under the pre-1970 delegate selection rules – a different world. (Humphrey won the nomination in 1968 while not entering a single primary). George Wallace managed it; he was a protest candidate and his most successful run was a petition campaign undertaken outside the Democratic Party. Neither Humphrey nor Wallace actually won the nomination the last time they ran. (Nor did Jerry Brown, while we’re at it).

    The post-1970 primary electorates will allow a candidate two shots at the prize, and sometimes just one (see Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee).

    • Replies: @Neoconned
    @Art Deco

    Yea but this is HILLARY....not some white ethnic schmaltzy Democrat from the east coast.

    Like Nero, shed burn the country down to stay in power.

    If they run anybody but her or Bernie Trump wins an easy 2nd term

  123. @Jack D
    @Opinionator

    Sure, but the question is whether that would merely be a meaningless (though expensive) symbolic gesture or a turning point? In order for it to be a turning point you would have to (fighting the Federal courts and the Permanent Government every step of the way) end chain migration, send back the illegals who are already here (not just the worst criminals), close the door to all the other loopholes (bogus "refugee" claims, etc.) , end free education and other free government benefits for illegal aliens, etc., etc. You would have to turn the whole giant ocean liner of government in a different direction. Unfortunately, I see no sign that Trump has the support of his own party, let alone the rest of the government , that would be needed to effectuate such a U- turn (or even to take that 1st step).

    Replies: @AnotherDad

    Sure, but the question is whether that would merely be a meaningless (though expensive) symbolic gesture or a turning point? In order for it to be a turning point you would have to (fighting the Federal courts and the Permanent Government every step of the way) end chain migration, send back the illegals who are already here (not just the worst criminals), close the door to all the other loopholes (bogus “refugee” claims, etc.) , end free education and other free government benefits for illegal aliens, etc., etc. You would have to turn the whole giant ocean liner of government in a different direction.

    This is exactly backwards.

    The Wall is precisely the one enforcement mechanism that keeps working even when the bureaucrat-legal apparatus is foot-dragging and hostile.

    We have a Border Patrol and they do their job. But for most of the border it’s like playing center field during batting practice. The illegals swing away and the BP agents have to run out and catch what they can. The Wall changes the dynamic and will make the BorderPatrol dramatically more effective. (We’ve seen that in the sectors that now have serious barriers.)

    The Wall will keep working even when ObamaII gets back into office. It be will politically very-difficult for the next traitor-President to just tell the BP to stand down. (Obama didn’t really fully do it. It would by wildly unpopular.)

    It’s actually the interior stuff–E-verify, exit tracking, employer checks/round-ups/prosecutions, and deportation–that is most subject to bureaucrat-legal nullification. Don’t get me wrong we need all that as well–and some things like exit-tracking and E-verify will be much tougher politically for the next Democrat to cancel. But overall those bureaucratic measures–the people stuff–are much easier for the hostile traitors to undermine.

    The Wall just keeps on working and working and working.

    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein
    @AnotherDad


    The Wall just keeps on working and working and working.
     
    Sure. That's why all those East Berliners are still stuck in their communist hellhole decades after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The Berlin Wall worked for at most a few hours after the border guards stopped enforcing the old law.

    Note: I am not one of those who say that walls do not work. I am all for building the wall and I always have been. Nor am I saying that the wall is merely a symbolic gesture. The wall has multiple levels of significance that should be enumerated.

    1. The Wall is a sign that says "This is a border." Those who built that wall can be presumed to defend that border.

    2. As such, the wall comprises part of a defensible boundary.

    3. The physical fact of the wall itself will deter any casual trespassers and wanderers from walking through unabated.

    4. Even more determined and serious invaders will at least be impeded by the wall long enough for their actions to be detected and a response to be mounted. In any case, the degree of force and/or subterfuge they will have to employ to breach the wall will itself signal their unfriendly intentions and will merit retribution.

    5. The wall is an earnest that interior enforcement will be practiced. It signals "Thus far and no further." Cross the wall and you will pay a penalty.

    In summary, the political will to defend the border is to the wall as the soul is to the body. The soul without the body is naked and powerless but it still exists; the body without the soul, however, is dead. A wall is nothing without political will, but any serious political will would entail building a wall (among many other things).

    Thos who would deny us a wall are attempting to deny us a body in an effort to banish our soul. The who-whomming is very real.
    , @Achmed E. Newman
    @AnotherDad


    This is exactly backwards.
     
    It's funny that you wrote that as the last comment while all the comments are exactly backwards (order)!

    Good comment, as usual, Dad.
  124. @Anon
    @Anonymous

    Why do I have the feeling that this book is not available in my local library?

    Replies: @Bleuteaux, @res

    My thought exactly. Honestly, how long until these kinds of books have been memory holed out of human history?

  125. @AnotherDad
    @Jack D


    Sure, but the question is whether that would merely be a meaningless (though expensive) symbolic gesture or a turning point? In order for it to be a turning point you would have to (fighting the Federal courts and the Permanent Government every step of the way) end chain migration, send back the illegals who are already here (not just the worst criminals), close the door to all the other loopholes (bogus “refugee” claims, etc.) , end free education and other free government benefits for illegal aliens, etc., etc. You would have to turn the whole giant ocean liner of government in a different direction.
     
    This is exactly backwards.

    The Wall is precisely the one enforcement mechanism that keeps working even when the bureaucrat-legal apparatus is foot-dragging and hostile.

    We have a Border Patrol and they do their job. But for most of the border it's like playing center field during batting practice. The illegals swing away and the BP agents have to run out and catch what they can. The Wall changes the dynamic and will make the BorderPatrol dramatically more effective. (We've seen that in the sectors that now have serious barriers.)

    The Wall will keep working even when ObamaII gets back into office. It be will politically very-difficult for the next traitor-President to just tell the BP to stand down. (Obama didn't really fully do it. It would by wildly unpopular.)

    It's actually the interior stuff--E-verify, exit tracking, employer checks/round-ups/prosecutions, and deportation--that is most subject to bureaucrat-legal nullification. Don't get me wrong we need all that as well--and some things like exit-tracking and E-verify will be much tougher politically for the next Democrat to cancel. But overall those bureaucratic measures--the people stuff--are much easier for the hostile traitors to undermine.

    The Wall just keeps on working and working and working.

    Replies: @Intelligent Dasein, @Achmed E. Newman

    The Wall just keeps on working and working and working.

    Sure. That’s why all those East Berliners are still stuck in their communist hellhole decades after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The Berlin Wall worked for at most a few hours after the border guards stopped enforcing the old law.

    Note: I am not one of those who say that walls do not work. I am all for building the wall and I always have been. Nor am I saying that the wall is merely a symbolic gesture. The wall has multiple levels of significance that should be enumerated.

    1. The Wall is a sign that says “This is a border.” Those who built that wall can be presumed to defend that border.

    2. As such, the wall comprises part of a defensible boundary.

    3. The physical fact of the wall itself will deter any casual trespassers and wanderers from walking through unabated.

    4. Even more determined and serious invaders will at least be impeded by the wall long enough for their actions to be detected and a response to be mounted. In any case, the degree of force and/or subterfuge they will have to employ to breach the wall will itself signal their unfriendly intentions and will merit retribution.

    5. The wall is an earnest that interior enforcement will be practiced. It signals “Thus far and no further.” Cross the wall and you will pay a penalty.

    In summary, the political will to defend the border is to the wall as the soul is to the body. The soul without the body is naked and powerless but it still exists; the body without the soul, however, is dead. A wall is nothing without political will, but any serious political will would entail building a wall (among many other things).

    Thos who would deny us a wall are attempting to deny us a body in an effort to banish our soul. The who-whomming is very real.

  126. @Jack D

    If we build a wall, and let’s suppose it works pretty well, the possibility of massive illegal immigration ceases to be an ongoing threat and becomes more of a historical idiosyncrasy.
     
    You are supposing facts not in evidence. Even if the wall and its supporting systems was effective (a wall by itself does little - it still has to be monitored and patrolled, etc.) the US-Mexico border is not the only point of entry into the country. Any time you have massive differences in standards of living there is a lot of pressure from those on the low side of the equation. And there is a lot of $ to be made smuggling people in. Chinese immigrants pay up to $80,000 to get smuggled in.

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16422719

    (That was 10 years ago - I don't know how much it is now).


    If the wall is built that only make the pressure worse. So people look for other ways to get in. A lot of illegals are people who arrived here on a plane, with a visa, and then overstayed. Expect people to fly to Canada and try to sneak across the Northern border. Maybe people will come by boat. With false papers. Claiming refugee status. Thru tunnels under the wall. Etc.

    If the Wall was really effective it would end drug smuggling across the Mexican border. What are the chances that's really going to happen?

    Replies: @Rod1963, @AM, @Opinionator, @AnotherDad, @JSM, @DRA, @DRA, @SteveRogers42

    NAFTA has gone some way to reduce the standard of living differential between USA and Mexico, which is why so many folks are now coming from Central America, and the rest of the world, THROUGH Mexico. Rather than FROM Mexico. If it were cheaper/easier for them to fly here, presumably they would.

  127. @AnotherDad
    @Jack D


    Sure, but the question is whether that would merely be a meaningless (though expensive) symbolic gesture or a turning point? In order for it to be a turning point you would have to (fighting the Federal courts and the Permanent Government every step of the way) end chain migration, send back the illegals who are already here (not just the worst criminals), close the door to all the other loopholes (bogus “refugee” claims, etc.) , end free education and other free government benefits for illegal aliens, etc., etc. You would have to turn the whole giant ocean liner of government in a different direction.
     
    This is exactly backwards.

    The Wall is precisely the one enforcement mechanism that keeps working even when the bureaucrat-legal apparatus is foot-dragging and hostile.

    We have a Border Patrol and they do their job. But for most of the border it's like playing center field during batting practice. The illegals swing away and the BP agents have to run out and catch what they can. The Wall changes the dynamic and will make the BorderPatrol dramatically more effective. (We've seen that in the sectors that now have serious barriers.)

    The Wall will keep working even when ObamaII gets back into office. It be will politically very-difficult for the next traitor-President to just tell the BP to stand down. (Obama didn't really fully do it. It would by wildly unpopular.)

    It's actually the interior stuff--E-verify, exit tracking, employer checks/round-ups/prosecutions, and deportation--that is most subject to bureaucrat-legal nullification. Don't get me wrong we need all that as well--and some things like exit-tracking and E-verify will be much tougher politically for the next Democrat to cancel. But overall those bureaucratic measures--the people stuff--are much easier for the hostile traitors to undermine.

    The Wall just keeps on working and working and working.

    Replies: @Intelligent Dasein, @Achmed E. Newman

    This is exactly backwards.

    It’s funny that you wrote that as the last comment while all the comments are exactly backwards (order)!

    Good comment, as usual, Dad.

  128. @BB753
    A wall is also a statement of national sovereignty. In our post-national, globalist world, it amounts to a declaration of war to the enemies of the nation state. I fear that the establishment will never allow a wall to be erected. Over their dead bodies.
    When Trump won, he thought being president was tantamount to being the CEO of a corporation, the real boss with executive powers. What he's found out is that the POTUS has virtually no power when virtually the entire civil service, legislators, senators, judges and top brass in the military decide that they're not going to obey his orders, as an outsider and iconoclast. With no support from Wall Street, the mainstream media, Harvard, Silicon Valley and most big corporations, there's no way he can get anything done.
    You either play by their rules or they kick you out of power, in a soft coup.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Boethiuss, @lavoisier, @ben tillman

    A wall is also a statement of national sovereignty. In our post-national, globalist world, it amounts to a declaration of war to the enemies of the nation state. I fear that the establishment will never allow a wall to be erected. Over their dead bodies.

    When Trump won, he thought being president was tantamount to being the CEO of a corporation, the real boss with executive powers. What he’s found out is that the POTUS has virtually no power when virtually the entire civil service, legislators, senators, judges and top brass in the military decide that they’re not going to obey his orders, as an outsider and iconoclast.

    He signs their paychecks. Surely, he can find some leverage somewhere.

    • Replies: @BB753
    @ben tillman

    He certainly ought to do so.

  129. @Jack D

    If we build a wall, and let’s suppose it works pretty well, the possibility of massive illegal immigration ceases to be an ongoing threat and becomes more of a historical idiosyncrasy.
     
    You are supposing facts not in evidence. Even if the wall and its supporting systems was effective (a wall by itself does little - it still has to be monitored and patrolled, etc.) the US-Mexico border is not the only point of entry into the country. Any time you have massive differences in standards of living there is a lot of pressure from those on the low side of the equation. And there is a lot of $ to be made smuggling people in. Chinese immigrants pay up to $80,000 to get smuggled in.

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16422719

    (That was 10 years ago - I don't know how much it is now).


    If the wall is built that only make the pressure worse. So people look for other ways to get in. A lot of illegals are people who arrived here on a plane, with a visa, and then overstayed. Expect people to fly to Canada and try to sneak across the Northern border. Maybe people will come by boat. With false papers. Claiming refugee status. Thru tunnels under the wall. Etc.

    If the Wall was really effective it would end drug smuggling across the Mexican border. What are the chances that's really going to happen?

    Replies: @Rod1963, @AM, @Opinionator, @AnotherDad, @JSM, @DRA, @DRA, @SteveRogers42

    The obvious way to stop drug smuggling is to legalize drugs and produce them here. It could be especially rough on ignorant people, folks with a short time preference, and those with low IQs….

    However, ever wonder how many drug deaths are due to lack of quality control? And how much violence is caused through the lawless drug markets where there is no legal recourse for resolving disputes? And how much general crime is due to people trying to fund their habit?

    But of course, more widespread use of many drugs could increase risk for nonusers as well. Certainly accidents of many types could increase, and some drugs tend to generate senseless violence.

    Illegal immigration seems to me to be a distinctly different problem from drugs. Both challenge our wisdom and compassion, but they mostly have to be addressed on their own merits.

    • Replies: @athEIst
    @DRA

    some drugs tend to generate senseless violence.

    Yes. there's alcohol and......

    Replies: @DRA

  130. anonymous • Disclaimer says: • Website

    Off Topicish: From the St. Cloud [MN]. Times … It’s the one year anniversary of the Muslim Mall Stabbings in Minnesota, Minnesotans react:

    A year later, many local leaders think we’re better off now. Something positive came out of the attack. It was the catalyst that drew people together.

    Central Minnesota saw more people inspired to take action. More people sought information, attending interfaith events or education sessions to learn more about Islam or the Somali community. People looked for ways to connect with each other at events and volunteer opportunities.

    While hate crimes spiked in the country — the Council on American-Islamic Relations reported a record number so far in 2017 — St. Cloud police haven’t reported any significant incidents in St. Cloud.

    And while all agree Central Minnesota is nowhere near perfect, we’re making progress.

    “The community got stronger from what happened,” Oxton said. “Instead of divisiveness, pointing fingers or blame, we came together in response to a pretty significant event. That’s how we didn’t allow negativity or finger-pointing to occur, but (went) through with the healing process.”

    Please send more Somalis to Minnesota they’re into it.

  131. @Pat Boyle
    @Opinionator

    Briefly, military historians trace the end of high walls to the Italian campaign of Louis XII of France. He was not that impressive a conqueror but he invaded Italy with cannon. Every high wall he met he simply knocked down.

    You can see something like that in the movie "The Pride and the Pasion" with Cary Grant and Frank Sinatra. They have a big cannon that lobs cannon balls at a fortress with high walls. The balls knock a big chunk in the wall and the top of the wall sheds rumble that makes a handy staircase into the fort.

    Essentially any good cannon can do that. They make a breach and that allows ground troops to enter. The first high walls may well have been Jericho. No one could successfully enter most forts for millennia except by siege - the inhabitants starved and waited for some outside assistance. That all changed in a few years. Soon everyone started building low walled fortresses designed to adsorb or deflect cannon shot.

    It happen very fast. It's called the Gunpowder Revolution. It swept from Western Europe East only reaching China much later.

    Replies: @athEIst

    It swept from Western Europe East only reaching China much later.

    Where it had been invented hundreds of years before. But the Chinese never thought to hurl round rocks with it, They did have fireworks though.

  132. @Anon
    @Anonymous

    Why do I have the feeling that this book is not available in my local library?

    Replies: @Bleuteaux, @res

    Probably not, but it is hard to judge library availability because there are so many different versions at Worldcat.

    Perhaps a good time to grab a copy of the PDF: http://www.liberius.net/livres/Isabella_of_Spain_000001061.pdf

  133. @ben tillman
    @BB753


    A wall is also a statement of national sovereignty. In our post-national, globalist world, it amounts to a declaration of war to the enemies of the nation state. I fear that the establishment will never allow a wall to be erected. Over their dead bodies.

    When Trump won, he thought being president was tantamount to being the CEO of a corporation, the real boss with executive powers. What he’s found out is that the POTUS has virtually no power when virtually the entire civil service, legislators, senators, judges and top brass in the military decide that they’re not going to obey his orders, as an outsider and iconoclast.
     
    He signs their paychecks. Surely, he can find some leverage somewhere.

    Replies: @BB753

    He certainly ought to do so.

  134. @jskdn
    If the wall battle is symbolic of the fundamental question of whether there should be a right of the people of the country to determine who and how many are allowed to immigrate, it’s will a Pyrrhic victory if people believe the wall alone is capable of achieving that goal. Before the Trump iteration, wall construction has been approved by politicians who had no intent to control immigration. Indeed, it has been border boob-bait for bubbas before and could be again.

    I wish the country was being asked to consider the fundamental question directly because failing to answer that leads people to ignore the logical extension and consequences of inactions and actions regarding immigration. That allows interested parties with political power to make choices that lead to outcomes that much of the country will fail to anticipate.

    Replies: @Opinionator

    I wish the country was being asked to consider the fundamental question directly because failing to answer that leads people to ignore the logical extension and consequences of inactions and actions regarding immigration.

    What is the fundamental question to consider?

  135. @3g4me
    @Luke Lea

    @33 Luke Lea: "The best wall would be a biometric Social Security card that you have to produce to buy groceries, fill up your car with gas, use a credit card, open a bank account, etc.."

    All hail the eternal State!

    Seriously, I sometimes read here and think I've accidentally stumbled into the National Review.

    "Walls don't work." That's why Israel has so many.
    "It's too expensive." That's why Hungary has one.
    "Gunpowder made walls obsolete." That's why Israel's and Hungary's "walls" are double layers of chain link fence and razor wire.
    "We need a national ID card." Yeah, because the authorities need help in achieving their cashless, constantly monitored economy.

    Add in the terribly serious midwits and IQ fetishists who love employing endless dialectic to counter anti-White posters' obvious rhetoric, and more and more frequently these threads epitomize America's degradation and downfall. You are not all nearly as clever and serious as you believe, and the eternal "on the one hand, on the other hand" and "interesting argument" equivocation demonstrates you have no genuine "America first" sentiment, let alone a minimum of White racial consciousness. Sure, sure, you'll be eaten last. Good on ya, mates .

    Replies: @Opinionator

    Show the way.

  136. @Anonymous
    I say we build The Big Beautiful Wall out of kryptonite!

    http://screenrant.com/superman-immigrants-daca-comic-book/

    Superman Protects Undocumented Immigrants From White Supremacists

    Superman protects undocumented immigrants from armed white supremacists in a new issue from DC Comics. This incredibly-timely story hit stores on Wednesday, September 13, one week after President Trump announced the end of DACA: the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy, which President Obama established in 2012. This immigration policy deferred deportation for some individuals who entered the USA illegally as minors and made them eligible for work permits.
     

    Replies: @CK, @SteveRogers42

    If Dr. Manhattan’s still on the payroll, ol’ Supe’s days are numbered.

  137. @El Dato
    @Opinionator

    That's easy: You could rip the wall down by blowing it up or throwing stuff against its flat, rather thin stonework with considerably more force than a balista could:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_engine#Modern_era

    Defense work quickly morphed into:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle#Bastions_and_star_forts_.2816th_century.29

    Modern "walls" will probably rapidly be light wirework patrolled by drones (flying or walking). Easier on animal migration, too. Hopefully the drones will not be "lethal force" dispensing, they might even ask you for ID in a professional manner.

    Replies: @Anonym, @SteveRogers42

  138. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon
    @Wilkey

    Even if everything went perfectly according to you guys, and illegal immigration were cut in half or better,we're still being swamped with legal immigration, and even if all of it stopped tomorrow, demographic trends would ensure our destruction.

    And Africa and Asia are going to be sending a lot more people than Mexico ever did. Sorry if this sounds negative, but it's important to be realistic. The only way the nation will be saved is through large-scale violence, and we don't have the stomach for that, or even the political will.

    Replies: @bomag, @Anonymous

    People talk about legal immigration as being much better than illegal, because of the caliber of immigrant we get, but another point people don’t really seem to know or mention- many of the legal immigrants come from countries that have ‘tax treaties’ with the US and owe little to no tax for years after coming here. Which is stupid, because they benefit from using resources our gov’t provides.

    • Replies: @Opinionator
    @Anonymous

    Why would legal immigration bring a better caliber of immigrant? It's based on family ties, lottery, etc.

  139. @Lucifer’s Barrister
    The following comment is too long. Skip it unless you don't mind the extra words. It's late, I didn't have time to edit to make it much shorter and easier to read. Apologies granted.

    Is the U.S.A. a nation? Doesn’t a nation require that its members have something in common, other than a piece of paper, a passport, a soc sec # or a birth certificate.

    We no longer share a common European racial background.
    Europeans are already a minority in many blue regions of our country.

    We no longer share basic cultural values, such as work ethic, respect for private property and the rule of law, civilizational higher education, responsible sexual cultural customs, or respect and belief in the institution of the family.

    We no longer share the moral and ethical values upheld by traditional western religions. We don’t even share a common language, according to the U.S. Census.

    In our progressive milieu what makes us Americans is the goods we consume – made in China – and the culture we consume – made in Hollywood and Manhattan.

    Globalization has standardized consumption around world. The core of the global culture is Facebook, smartphones, and gangsta rap.

    The whole world is on Facebook, loves smartphones and listens to rap music. On what basis are we going to tell an illegal that he is not as American as any Tyrone Okereke from anywhere USA.

    We have not been a nation since at least WWII. White nationalism is a sub-culture, like gays, hipsters and the other tribes that make up our society.

    Our future is not in turning America into a nation. It’s 100 years too late for that. The best we can do is learn to survive in ways that allow us to keep our culture, heritage, values, and property.

    Forced integration will kill us. Enforced political correctness will destroy our minds. Once again, like the European colonist 400 years ago, we must learn to survive in a country were the non-Europeans outnumber us, compete with us for territory and resources, and will attack us unless we take security precautions.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    That is an unpleasant reality that you describe, but it seems quite probably to be an accurate diagnosis.

    Reluctantly, kind of agreed.

  140. @AnotherDad
    @Neoconned


    Trump is older than Clinton and yet we assume she wont run again? If Trump can why can’t she?
     
    Very much doubt it. But who cares. She won't be her party's nominee.

    When you lose an election your party believes you should have won, it pretty much ends your career. I have no idea who the Democrats will nominate, could be almost anyone at this point, but it won't be Hillary.

    Replies: @Jack D, @athEIst

    Of course she won’t be the nominee. She knows this now, but in a year or two if Trump looks weak she’ll start to think that since she won the popular vote and if a few more deplorables don’t vote in Michigan and Wisconsin and Florida she could win. She will be delusional of course and that will be fun to watch. I guarantee it will happen.

  141. @LondonBob
    In other news the Libyan coastguard have been burning immigrant boats, someone has clearly decided to finally do something, funny how easy it was to do something.

    Replies: @athEIst, @SteveRogers42

    Libya(thanks US&EU)is a failed state. I doubt it has a coast guard. Last I heard the Italian Navy rescues these boats 50 miles off the coast of Africa and tows them to Italy.

    • Replies: @Brutusale
    @athEIst

    As Steve already covered, there's a new sheriff in town in Italy, and Mark Strong can play him when they make the movie.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/sep/07/italian-minister-migrants-libya-marco-minniti

    How'd he do it? Fuggedaboutit!

  142. @DRA
    @Jack D

    The obvious way to stop drug smuggling is to legalize drugs and produce them here. It could be especially rough on ignorant people, folks with a short time preference, and those with low IQs....

    However, ever wonder how many drug deaths are due to lack of quality control? And how much violence is caused through the lawless drug markets where there is no legal recourse for resolving disputes? And how much general crime is due to people trying to fund their habit?

    But of course, more widespread use of many drugs could increase risk for nonusers as well. Certainly accidents of many types could increase, and some drugs tend to generate senseless violence.

    Illegal immigration seems to me to be a distinctly different problem from drugs. Both challenge our wisdom and compassion, but they mostly have to be addressed on their own merits.

    Replies: @athEIst

    some drugs tend to generate senseless violence.

    Yes. there’s alcohol and……

    • Replies: @DRA
    @athEIst

    PCP and....

  143. @Anonymous
    @Anon

    People talk about legal immigration as being much better than illegal, because of the caliber of immigrant we get, but another point people don't really seem to know or mention- many of the legal immigrants come from countries that have 'tax treaties' with the US and owe little to no tax for years after coming here. Which is stupid, because they benefit from using resources our gov't provides.

    Replies: @Opinionator

    Why would legal immigration bring a better caliber of immigrant? It’s based on family ties, lottery, etc.

  144. @Jack D

    If we build a wall, and let’s suppose it works pretty well, the possibility of massive illegal immigration ceases to be an ongoing threat and becomes more of a historical idiosyncrasy.
     
    You are supposing facts not in evidence. Even if the wall and its supporting systems was effective (a wall by itself does little - it still has to be monitored and patrolled, etc.) the US-Mexico border is not the only point of entry into the country. Any time you have massive differences in standards of living there is a lot of pressure from those on the low side of the equation. And there is a lot of $ to be made smuggling people in. Chinese immigrants pay up to $80,000 to get smuggled in.

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16422719

    (That was 10 years ago - I don't know how much it is now).


    If the wall is built that only make the pressure worse. So people look for other ways to get in. A lot of illegals are people who arrived here on a plane, with a visa, and then overstayed. Expect people to fly to Canada and try to sneak across the Northern border. Maybe people will come by boat. With false papers. Claiming refugee status. Thru tunnels under the wall. Etc.

    If the Wall was really effective it would end drug smuggling across the Mexican border. What are the chances that's really going to happen?

    Replies: @Rod1963, @AM, @Opinionator, @AnotherDad, @JSM, @DRA, @DRA, @SteveRogers42

    I don’t know, and neither do you. Let’s build the frickin’ Wall and find out.

  145. @Anonymous
    The left hates the wall because it's like a concrete, unfuzzy enforcement of immigration laws they -- undemocratically -- would rather defy or slow-walk than put to the national public for repeal. It takes the power of discretion from captured bureaucracies and therefore restores power to their enemies, from institutions they firmly control to those just outside their grasp.

    It's as if by demographically rigging their fiefdoms (urban centers, if not border states) they've concentrated their powers into a narrow beam than can cut through the nation's virtual wall of laws.

    https://twitter.com/AP/status/908980381009006594

    https://twitter.com/AP/status/908792683631607809

    Replies: @SteveRogers42

    “The judge has made his ruling, now let him enforce it”.

  146. @Luke Lea
    The best wall would be a biometric Social Security card that you have to produce to buy groceries, fill up your car with gas, use a credit card, open a bank account, etc.. It's useless depending on employers not to employ illegals, even with e-verify. They'll figure a way to get around it, pay with cash for instance. But even cash purchases in grocery stores and filling stations could require an ID. Of course you would also have to have biometric visas, but that's no problem.

    Replies: @3g4me, @Achmed E. Newman, @SteveRogers42

    Yeah! More centralized control and round-the-clock surveillance! That’s the ticket!

  147. @Neoconned
    @Guy de Champlagne

    A lotta ppl here are postulating everybody from Kamala Harris to thay Ellison dude from Minnesota as our next Democrat presidential candidate.

    Im convinced now given her book and media appearances giving a multitude of excuses Madam Chairman isnt done w her run for the presidency.

    Trump is older than Clinton and yet we assume she wont run again? If Trump can why can't she?

    Replies: @AnotherDad, @Art Deco, @Art Deco, @SteveRogers42

    Please let it happen.

    • Replies: @Neoconned
    @SteveRogers42

    Please i like you & many others only backed him -- and i did only half heartedly......because of his promises to end the free trade scams, slow if not end immigration, deportation of illegals and of course a return to 1990s levels of unionized factory jobs.

    If he doesnt deliver and soon all those midwest voters will abandon him and stay home & hillary will carry those states.

    Hes jettisoned Bannon and while he said ME wars were a stupid idea hes sure enjoying being in bed w the neocons. All this lol while his daughter and unqualified son in law dictate war policy....

    Instead of putting the neocons on trial hes embracing them and their warped policy ideas.

    Carville put it simply & best....its the economy stupid.

    I know those blogger idiots who secretly read Steve's site don't realize it but rank and file dems and just ordinary ppl and independents don't give a rats ass about ISIL or jihadis outside of keeping them out via immigration enforcement....

    We dont want more wars of choice or trade deals....we want our unions and our factories back. And if we cant have that we want Bernie type New Deal job programs similar to what the Japanese have done to slow deflation.

    We know its not perfect but hell it beats what we got now.

    I work three restaurant jobs, 2 of them fast food. 7 days a wk. I walk to each of my jobs, dont own a car. I dont care about or want excuses i want results. And QUICKLY as my boss screams at me every single stinking day to get product out to customers.

    People like me want better jobs, fewer scabs competing for our work, less immigration and more results.

    Deflation is coming like a devil to the USA. And to be frank I'd like to enjoy my last 25-40 years on this rock instead of struggling for an ever shrinking piece of the ever rotting pie....

  148. @Jus' Sayin'...
    @Guy de Champlagne


    "...teaming up with economic liberals to use government regulation to punish those that employ, house, and bank with illegal immigrants...."
     
    Unfortunately, those same progs ("economic liberals") will then argue that we must supply these now unemployed people with welfare benefits, food stamps, Medicaid, and any other welfare program the progs can think of. Those same progs will also expect us to educate these newly unemployed illegals' children and pay through the nose for the crime that many will eventually commit. There is no way the progs plan on encouraging these people to obey our laws and leave our country. Only a self-deluding fool would imagine otherwise.

    Only the purposefully deluded can any longer imagine that "negotiating" with progs is even a break-even strategy. A prog's idea of compromise is continuing to ratchet policy in the direction he wants but at a slightly slower rate than he would like.

    The stoopid party establishment plays dumb and deliberately conspires with progs in this ratcheting process. I'd hoped for better from Trump.

    Replies: @Guy de Champlagne, @SteveRogers42

    See comment #53.

  149. @Lagertha
    @Lagertha

    Finland has a 1.5 kilometer wide wall, BTW!!!!! fence first; guarded with guns; next: long 100 yard or so sand pit/sand lot (footprints and "matter" is a dead give away); trees and shrubs (Soviets had no money on their side) and then: Soviet (now Russian) old metal 12 foot high fence. Kid you knot: 12 feet for both Finns and Russians btw, on both sides. If you climbed that, either side, you were shot dead...maybe, even today. There are only a few roadways on the 1,300 mile fence.

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk, @OilcanFloyd, @Joe Stalin, @SteveRogers42

    Hakkaa palle!

  150. @Dave Pinsen
    @Guy de Champlagne

    You want to win the fight to keep it manned? How about this:

    1) Announce that the TSA is going to be shut down in 6 months, and airport screening turned over to airports.

    2) Create an auxiliary border patrol to supplement the current one, and hire every former TSA employee at 1.2x their current salary, plus generous relocation assistance to staff it.

    3) Hire an additional 50k auxiliaries, with preference given to black high school graduates with clean records.

    Get rid of an unpopular federal agency, provide good paying jobs to ~80k minorities, and maybe spur a bit of gentrification in the processs.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @SteveRogers42

    Excellent, except for clause 2 of part 3). No more Aff Action of any kind.

    Other than that, Trump should have done as you suggest on Day One.

  151. @LondonBob
    In other news the Libyan coastguard have been burning immigrant boats, someone has clearly decided to finally do something, funny how easy it was to do something.

    Replies: @athEIst, @SteveRogers42

    Bob — please pass the sauce on that.

  152. @BB753
    @Anonymous

    So, you're happy with your candidate being powerless as a president?
    What's Trump got to loose at this point? He's 71 and a billionaire. If it were up to me, I'd stage a subtle counter-coup. Drain the stamp, for God's sake, as promised. Start firing people. Impeach judges. Send that POS Pence on a world - wide diplomatic tour non-stop for a couple of years, as far as Washington as possible. Make him visit every freaking country on the planet, the shittier the better. Dig up the dirt on Ryan, Mitt Cuckney and McDonnell, and the justices too. Bend them to your will.
    Don't trust anybody who's not 100% loyal to you. Fire dissenters and backstabbers from your staff. Ostracize or destroy anybody who stands in your way, be it a government employee, a judge, a top-ranked official or a military officer. That's the way the Left has had its way for 8 decades. Its time for the Right to clean house or die trying. This is our last stand.

    Replies: @SteveRogers42, @EdwardM

    Simply hitting “agree” would be too mild a response for this. We all know what needs to be done. Does Trump?

    • Replies: @BB753
    @SteveRogers42

    Sure, Bannon probably told Trump what needed to be done. So there's your answer. He fired him.
    IMHO, Trump is too much of a liberal for this battle, and too old. He's no Cincinnatus.

    Replies: @SteveRogers42

  153. @Art Deco
    @Neoconned

    Trump is older than Clinton and yet we assume she wont run again? If Trump can why can’t she?

    Trump is healthy. Hilligula? There's an anaesthesiologist who has produced and posted a Youtube calling attention to various tics and public incidents. He's careful to say he's not a specialist in neurology and he is not her doctor. It's his personal belief that she shows signs of Parkinson's and that it's a passable inference that it was first diagnosed in 2005.

    I'm recalling that Richard Gephardt was in 1988 appalled at the amount of personal information the media demanded of him and tried to organize a cartel with the other candidates to refuse to answer many inquiries. I don't think he succeeded. It was interesting 16 years later how John Kerry trusted the Boston Globe sufficiently to examine his Navy personnel file when no one else was permitted to see it. John McCain in 2008 had to have long Q & A sessions with reporters with documentation present while BO got by with a vague one-page memo from his doctor. The media didn't used to be extensions of the Democratic Party.

    And of course there was her month-long disappearance in 2012 after her William Holdenesque accident at home. (From which Bilge admitted it took her months to recover).

    Replies: @Neoconned

    Im very aware of her health issues & i actually agree w a lot of the “conspiracy theories” about her health.

    Recall somebody claimed she was being poisoned….

    That being said 40-45pc of the country will vote for her no matter what and all it takes is convincing the other 5-10pc to back her.

    I prefer Trump to her but as i said before I’m a cynical Bernie Sanders supporter over Trump.

    Kamala is not Obama & cant do Tony Robbins fancy speeches talking hope & change. Right now the dems are in trouble because pf Hillary & Bernies age…..

    Latinos arent as likely to back some mixed race flake like Harris. Clinton is 1 half of a political dynasty and she isnt about to go down w/out a fight.

    Look at how defiant she is. Gore had class and recused himself after his defeat. She’s the type who’d prefer to go down in flames….

  154. @Art Deco
    @Neoconned

    and yet we assume she wont run again? If Trump can why can’t she?

    Also third-time's-a-charm is unusual in Presidential politics. Bob Dole managed it, but he only ran two vigorous and competitive campaigns; he was notably more prominent as a national politician after 1984 than he was at the time of his first run. Jerry Brown managed it; again, he ran only two vigorous campaigns; his 2d campaign failed immediately. Ronald Reagan managed it, but his first candidacy in 1968 incorporated almost no campaigning. He announced, was a rallying point for uncommitted delegates during the floor vote the following day, and then it was over. Hubert Humphrey managed it, but two of his campaigns were run under the pre-1970 delegate selection rules - a different world. (Humphrey won the nomination in 1968 while not entering a single primary). George Wallace managed it; he was a protest candidate and his most successful run was a petition campaign undertaken outside the Democratic Party. Neither Humphrey nor Wallace actually won the nomination the last time they ran. (Nor did Jerry Brown, while we're at it).

    The post-1970 primary electorates will allow a candidate two shots at the prize, and sometimes just one (see Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee).

    Replies: @Neoconned

    Yea but this is HILLARY….not some white ethnic schmaltzy Democrat from the east coast.

    Like Nero, shed burn the country down to stay in power.

    If they run anybody but her or Bernie Trump wins an easy 2nd term

  155. @SteveRogers42
    @Neoconned

    Please let it happen.

    Replies: @Neoconned

    Please i like you & many others only backed him — and i did only half heartedly……because of his promises to end the free trade scams, slow if not end immigration, deportation of illegals and of course a return to 1990s levels of unionized factory jobs.

    If he doesnt deliver and soon all those midwest voters will abandon him and stay home & hillary will carry those states.

    Hes jettisoned Bannon and while he said ME wars were a stupid idea hes sure enjoying being in bed w the neocons. All this lol while his daughter and unqualified son in law dictate war policy….

    Instead of putting the neocons on trial hes embracing them and their warped policy ideas.

    Carville put it simply & best….its the economy stupid.

    I know those blogger idiots who secretly read Steve’s site don’t realize it but rank and file dems and just ordinary ppl and independents don’t give a rats ass about ISIL or jihadis outside of keeping them out via immigration enforcement….

    We dont want more wars of choice or trade deals….we want our unions and our factories back. And if we cant have that we want Bernie type New Deal job programs similar to what the Japanese have done to slow deflation.

    We know its not perfect but hell it beats what we got now.

    I work three restaurant jobs, 2 of them fast food. 7 days a wk. I walk to each of my jobs, dont own a car. I dont care about or want excuses i want results. And QUICKLY as my boss screams at me every single stinking day to get product out to customers.

    People like me want better jobs, fewer scabs competing for our work, less immigration and more results.

    Deflation is coming like a devil to the USA. And to be frank I’d like to enjoy my last 25-40 years on this rock instead of struggling for an ever shrinking piece of the ever rotting pie….

  156. @SteveRogers42
    @BB753

    Simply hitting "agree" would be too mild a response for this. We all know what needs to be done. Does Trump?

    Replies: @BB753

    Sure, Bannon probably told Trump what needed to be done. So there’s your answer. He fired him.
    IMHO, Trump is too much of a liberal for this battle, and too old. He’s no Cincinnatus.

    • Replies: @SteveRogers42
    @BB753

    Many, many puzzling personnel decisions by Trump: General Flynn fired for what, exactly????? A tiger like Sheriff Clarke (who would clearly relish an opportunity) ignored. People who helped his campaign a great deal, like Guiliani, nowhere to be seen.

    Contrast that with that little weasel Kushner slithering around the Administration, and its enough to validate any number of conspiracy theories.

  157. @Boethiuss
    @BB753


    When Trump won, he thought being president was tantamount to being the CEO of a corporation, the real boss with executive powers. What he’s found out is that the POTUS has virtually no power when virtually the entire civil service, legislators, senators, judges and top brass in the military decide that they’re not going to obey his orders, as an outsider and iconoclast. With no support from Wall Street, the mainstream media, Harvard, Silicon Valley and most big corporations, there’s no way he can get anything done.
     
    No, no, no, no no. In fact the reason why this is wrong was largelywhat motivated my comment that Steve made a post from.

    POTUS, in the abstract and in the case of recent examples, has lots and lots and lots of power. President Donald Trump, is pretty much useless. The Left basically made a rule where, what the President says goes, unless its Trump in which case it really doesn't count. Trump's own incompetence has made that stick. Most of the commentors here want to believe that it's because Trump is a nationalist, or opposes immigration, or what-not. But that's a crock. Things would be much different if it were President Bannon, or President Pat Buchanan, or Jeff Sessions, or anybody else.

    Donald Trump is a the point of vulnerability.

    Replies: @BB753

    It’s not just the person, but the way the political system works. Only democrat presidents enjoy the full powers of presidency and beyond because the whole government is run by democrats to start with, particularly the judicial branch.

  158. @lavoisier
    @BB753

    He is not powerless if he keeps his promises and fights for what he claims he believes.

    The American people will support him against the establishment if he keeps his promises.

    So far he is failing to do that. Failing miserably.

    If he thinks making friends with Ryan, Schumer and Pelosi is going to protect him from the deep state he is delusional.

    The only hope for Trump is to lead. And that means first and foremost keep your promises.

    END DACA and no new amnesty. Have a fireside chat with the American people and tell them that he is going to build the wall using a novel strategy. Let the traitorous establishment scum like Ryan, McCain, Graham, and Flake come out of the closet and defy him. That would demonstrate to even the low information white voter who keeps electing these vermin how stupid they have been voting for these traitors to the nation. Perhaps they will get red pilled and start opening up their minds to the possibility that their elected representatives are bought and paid for whores.

    Stop making excuses for Trump. Either he leads and takes a stand on these vitally important issues or he is finished. He was elected to lead, not to negotiate with the devils.

    He needs to get smart fast.

    Replies: @BB753

    I’m not making excuses for Trump. You have to be blind to not see what’s happening: the government actively sabotaged the early Trump administration and what we have now in its place is some sort of compromise.

  159. @athEIst
    @DRA

    some drugs tend to generate senseless violence.

    Yes. there's alcohol and......

    Replies: @DRA

    PCP and….

  160. @BB753
    @Anonymous

    So, you're happy with your candidate being powerless as a president?
    What's Trump got to loose at this point? He's 71 and a billionaire. If it were up to me, I'd stage a subtle counter-coup. Drain the stamp, for God's sake, as promised. Start firing people. Impeach judges. Send that POS Pence on a world - wide diplomatic tour non-stop for a couple of years, as far as Washington as possible. Make him visit every freaking country on the planet, the shittier the better. Dig up the dirt on Ryan, Mitt Cuckney and McDonnell, and the justices too. Bend them to your will.
    Don't trust anybody who's not 100% loyal to you. Fire dissenters and backstabbers from your staff. Ostracize or destroy anybody who stands in your way, be it a government employee, a judge, a top-ranked official or a military officer. That's the way the Left has had its way for 8 decades. Its time for the Right to clean house or die trying. This is our last stand.

    Replies: @SteveRogers42, @EdwardM

    Agree with this but, even if he could do it all, there is still this problem:

    Don’t trust anybody who’s not 100% loyal to you.

    There aren’t enough such people. Trump has done a terrible job filling the ranks of assistant secretaries, deputy assistant secretaries, Schedule Cs, U.S. Attorneys, and all of the other presidential appointees that are required to implement his agenda.

    Maybe this is because he doesn’t understand how the federal government works — where it’s much harder for a strong CEO to get the bureaucracy to bend to his will — maybe it’s because he thinks that leaving these posts vacant can shrink the scope of the government, or maybe it’s because he can’t find enough loyal, qualified people.

    I find it unseemly that he has Ivanka and Jared in such powerful roles, but it’s hard to fault him when he realizes that at least these two are loyal to him.

    • Agree: BB753
    • Replies: @BB753
    @EdwardM

    About Ivanka, all little princesses end up breaking daddy's heart. She's been turned into a neocon both in bed and in politics.

  161. @EdwardM
    @BB753

    Agree with this but, even if he could do it all, there is still this problem:


    Don’t trust anybody who’s not 100% loyal to you.
     
    There aren't enough such people. Trump has done a terrible job filling the ranks of assistant secretaries, deputy assistant secretaries, Schedule Cs, U.S. Attorneys, and all of the other presidential appointees that are required to implement his agenda.

    Maybe this is because he doesn't understand how the federal government works -- where it's much harder for a strong CEO to get the bureaucracy to bend to his will -- maybe it's because he thinks that leaving these posts vacant can shrink the scope of the government, or maybe it's because he can't find enough loyal, qualified people.

    I find it unseemly that he has Ivanka and Jared in such powerful roles, but it's hard to fault him when he realizes that at least these two are loyal to him.

    Replies: @BB753

    About Ivanka, all little princesses end up breaking daddy’s heart. She’s been turned into a neocon both in bed and in politics.

  162. @BB753
    @SteveRogers42

    Sure, Bannon probably told Trump what needed to be done. So there's your answer. He fired him.
    IMHO, Trump is too much of a liberal for this battle, and too old. He's no Cincinnatus.

    Replies: @SteveRogers42

    Many, many puzzling personnel decisions by Trump: General Flynn fired for what, exactly????? A tiger like Sheriff Clarke (who would clearly relish an opportunity) ignored. People who helped his campaign a great deal, like Guiliani, nowhere to be seen.

    Contrast that with that little weasel Kushner slithering around the Administration, and its enough to validate any number of conspiracy theories.

    • Agree: BB753
  163. @Rod1963
    @Jack D

    Nice spin. Just do nothing, roll over and die.

    The fact the progs are screaming like stuck pigs along with the chambers of commerce, says to me it's effective. Progs never bitch about anything that is harmless to them.

    The wall to the Left means, even if they are in power, they will have to tear it down in places. They can't do that without opening a can of worms.

    Walls work for Hungary, Israel and Saudi Arabia. That's good enough for me.

    But someone says they won't work on Mexicans. Not likely.

    Going to Canada you say? Excellent, that will filter out a lot of them.

    We can build a wall on the North side as well. It's not hard, just copy the one Israelis have in the Sinai border. It may come to that anyway as Canada is going out of it's way of coddling Muslim terrorists. Be a great jobs program as well for combat vets.

    Replies: @Guy de Champlagne, @OilcanFloyd

    What is the Israel fetish some people have? America has the ability to build a wall, and previous generations had no problem defining and defending the nation.

    If anything, America’s Jewish elites need to get their priorities straight and quit being traitors in constant opposition to traditional America and Americans.

    We don’t need a wall. We need elites who aren’t traitors. Our current elites would just view the building of the wall as a chance to feed at the public trough, and then bring in more immigrants by sea and air.

  164. @athEIst
    @LondonBob

    Libya(thanks US&EU)is a failed state. I doubt it has a coast guard. Last I heard the Italian Navy rescues these boats 50 miles off the coast of Africa and tows them to Italy.

    Replies: @Brutusale

    As Steve already covered, there’s a new sheriff in town in Italy, and Mark Strong can play him when they make the movie.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/sep/07/italian-minister-migrants-libya-marco-minniti

    How’d he do it? Fuggedaboutit!

  165. @OilcanFloyd
    @Lagertha

    Lagertha, I wouldn't brag about your wall, since Finnish politicians have been busy selling you out, also. Parts of Helsinki look like Somalia, and Russians are all over eastern Finland legally.

    I know that Finland isn't in the same position as the U.S., or even Sweden, but I know Finns who would support a change in the situation. Many Finns are completely naive or crazy when it comes to the issues of race and immigration, and your elites support that situation, for the most part.

    Replies: @Lagertha

    yes, I know all about the current migrant crisis (smaller, but people still pouring in) in Finland…and the Somali population in the cities (Kurds were the only ones that assimilated in the early 90’s)…and the Russians. Right now, all the politicians are experiencing a backlash due to cuts in benefits (and tax increases for everyone) to the elderly, young and vulnerable. It is truly fascinating to read about the fights. Finnish people are getting worried that the EU was the biggest mistake they ever made. 15,000 of their best and brightest have moved abroad for work; and, their millionaires are retiring in tax-haven countries. Off-shoring is just as bad, and, there are no jobs for unskilled/marginally skilled people. Lots of things getting automated.

    But, they have always had the (guarded) border because of their epic fight with Russia 100 years ago, and again, in 1939. They also have army, navy & airforce unlike many other neighboring countries.

    President Sipila, about a month ago, at the WH (with Trump) sort of bitch-slapped the American press in attendance that Europe & the USA must work with Russia…and, that Finland feels that this is the only rational method to have peace with Russia. Even though I don’t like the PM nor the Finnish president (they are not sufficiently right wing/patriotic for me), I am glad he told the USA to quit the Russia, Russia, Russia thing. Stirring up nuclear fever is not acceptable. So, at least he acted like a man towards US press and Neocons/Neoliberals in the audience. So, the dirty globalist politicians are now having a tougher time with a growing, concerned public. Finns are difficult to lie to.

  166. @Buzz Mohawk
    @Lagertha

    Finland does a lot of things right. It is known for the academic performance of its students, for example.

    (It's where Kimi Raikkonen comes from, too.)

    But you know, these things are achievable when your population is homogenous. Even more doable when that population is modestly sized.

    America could build the best damn border structures ever seen, if only its citizens could agree to do so -- and if their government would ever listen to them. Not enough Americans realize that an immigration invasion is just as deadly as a Soviet invasion, in a slow, boiling frog sort of way.

    Would Finland have built up such a great border if Russians had come in offering to work cheap for the people who control the government, and to vote for them too?

    Replies: @Lagertha

    Buzz, as you know, I live here, in NE, as do you? No, the system of fences was essential right after the war, because, you are correct: lots of Russians wanted to come to live in Finland (quality of life)…but, Finns did not/do not trust outsiders/others – this is deeply ingrained. And, bc Finland has an army, navy & air force, the “fence” is continually guarded by soldiers – I went there for fun with an American HS boyfriend….and weirdly, we got a tour from some young, bored soldiers in the 70’s! The sand strip is actually (the sand pit/50 yard wide sand area) excavated 15-20 meters deep (so no one can dig) and filled with sand.

    You are also correct that I can not convince fellow Americans about the dangers of Immivasion. I have lost friends who think I am unduly paranoid. However, I have enough (and growing) friends who see the danger of unfettered immigration.

    As far as homogeneity, I think the over all, bad weather (8 months of bone chilling cold) of Finland keeps immigrants/migrants away. Plus, culturally, Finns are too unpredictable and aloof for people to feel comfortable there. They are also bigger, taller and broader than most people. Many MENA people have “self-deported,”…I just want all those men gone – I’m fine with families that are truly not parasites.

    As far as a fence/wall in Mexico; it just needs to be full-tech. It needs to be a giant beast of metal detectors, deflective AI, monitored with multiple sound and motion sensors, “eyes” everywhere. And, made of material that is so not nice to touch. Put robots to work! You could open up plants in Kentucky and West Virginia to just build “surveillance” robots and sensors for the walls/fences…..or any walls/fences any country wants, whenever! I liked the “fences” in Hunger Games. If Donald actually gives funding for plants in the Rust Belt and Appalachia to make robots and surveillance sensors/drones…he better remember me!!!

  167. Change “wall” to “magical cost-free force field” and the post almost makes sense.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS